Skip to main content

Full text of "The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Vol. 10 X, July to December, 1901"

See other formats

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized 
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the 
information in books and make it universally accessible. 

Google" books 


HN Ub'lfl P 


cp > 

©arbarti CoUrgc ILtliraru 

>4.0/nu4, \l..CUMvrJL 

Digitized b 

Digitized by LjOOQLe 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



Digitized by 


Digitized by {jOOQle 


Ecclesiastical Record 

21 JHontfjlg Journal, unier (Episcopal Sanction 



JFourti) Series 





Digitized by 

C_f ,'^.fr 

/G^ RD 

, ❖ 'V' 

SEP 12 1916 

f$<f‘ litC, 

Nihil Obstat. 



* Golielmus, 

Arehiep. Dublin., Hibernia* Primae. 

..own k mu- , im.. nMevmawr. omu. 

NOV 1 0 lUifi 

Digitized by 




Adolph Kolping. By Dr. C. H. Montague-Clarke 
Agnosticism ; A General Sketch. By Rev. P. Coffey - 
Agnosticism : A Special Study. By Rev. P. Coffey 
Buddhism, Dr. Aiken on. By Very Rev. Dr. W. McDonald 
Children, The Moral Training of. By Rev. R. E. Fitzhenry,, 

D.FH. -------- 

Christian Archaeology, A Handbook of. By Rev. J. Hassan - 
* Contrition, Make an Act of.’ By R. F. L. 


Father Mathew Union ------ 563 

Termination of Prayer 4 Fidelinm ' on 4 All Souls Day * - - 304 

Development of Religion : A Criticism. By Rev. J. M'Caffrey - 1 

Dr. Salmon’s ' Infallibility.’ By Very Rev. Dr. Murphy, v.f. 37, ^39, 395 
Fathers, The, A Plea for the Study of. By Rev. George E. Price - 540 


Ang el Guardian of a Kingdom, Feast of ... 475 

Anthony of Padua, St., Blessing of Lilies of 182 

Beatification and Canonization of the Blessed Emilie de Rodat - 281 

Correspondence between Irish Hierarchy and Local Government 

Board regarding Nuns as Hospital Nurses - - - 456 

Capuchins and the Holy Office ----- 83 

Calendar, Solution of Doubts relating to - - - 366 

Condemnation of New Devotions - - - - - 86, 87 

Decree condemning Devotion to the Soul of Our Lord - - 463 

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda granting the 

Bishop of Raphoe power to erect a Diocesan Chapter - - 565 

Decree erecting the Cathedral of Letterkenny, under the patronage 

of St. Eunan and St. ColumkiUe - 565 

Decree dispensing the Faithful of Raphoe from Fast on Vigil of 
the Feast of the Diocesan Patrons and transferring the 
obligation of hearing Mass and of abstaining front servile 
works to the following Sunday - 666 

Devotion of the New Cross - - - - - -471 

Dispensation, Is Validity of, affected by omission of Penance 2b3, 284 
Feast of the Angel Guardian of a Kingdom ... 475 

Feast of St John Baptist de La Salle .... VI 








Digitized by {jOOQle 



Doouxbmib — continued. 

Glasgow University and the Pope ... *80 

Holy Oils. Transmission of - - - . - 464 

J ubilee Visits made prooessionally - - - 82 

Litany >f Lofetto and Prayers ufter Mass - 466 

Marriages, The Validity of Certain .... 370 

Nuns as Hospital Nurses. Correspondence between Irish Hierarchy 

and Local Government Board - - - 466 

Mass of ‘ Refugium Peccatorum * in Paschal Time - 284 

Mass on Board Ship, Permission for .... 355 

Mass to be said at Dedication of Church .... 366 

Letter of His Holiness Pope Leo XIIL to the Cardinal Patriarch 

of Lisbon - - ... - - 84 

Letter of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII. to a French Dominican - 180 

Litany of Loretto, Conclusion of - - - - 80 

Martyrology, Roman, Changes in - - - 467 

Pauline Privilege, The ...... 86 

Pope Leo XIII. praises Gregorian Chant of Solesmes 89 

Pope Leo XIII. and His Noble Guard - - 181 

Powers of a Vicar-General ..... 472 

Prayers after Mass ------- 90 

Prayer to St. Joseph ------- 90 

Resolutions of Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland on Provision 

made for Spiritual Needs of Cal holies in the Navy - - 178 

Roman Martyrology, Changes in - - - - 467 

Rosary of the Sisters of Charity ..... 179 

Solution of Various Doubts ..... 473 

Spiritual Needs of Catholics in the Navy - - - - 178 

Stations of the Cross, Proper Erection of - - - - 178 

Transmission of Holy Oils ...... 464 

Validity of Dispensations ...... 473 

Vicar-General, Certain Powers of - - - - 88 

Ethics, The Relation of, j Religion. By W. Vesey Hague, m.a. - 205 

Higher Criticism, The Rise and Progress of. By Rev. Reginald 

Walsh, o.p. ....... 498 

Irish Missionaries, The Trials of some. By Rev. James P. Rushe, o.d.c. 260 

Italy, Modem, A Novel of. By Rev. R. A. O’Gorman, 0.8 . a. - - 140 

Iveagh, Lord, and other Irish Offioers, Students in the College des 
Grassins, in Paris, from 1684 to 1710. By Very Rev. Patriok 
Boyle, an. - - - - - - 385 

Lacordaire. By Rev. John Murphy .... - 339 

Lord Iveagh and other Irish Officers in France. By Very Rev. Patriok 

Boyle, c.m. - 385 

' Make an Act of Contrition. ’ By R. F. L. - - - - 161 

Miracles, The Philosophical Truth of. By Rev. P. A. Coakley, o.s.a. - 97 

Moral Training of Children, The. By Rev. R. E. Fitzhenry,, 220 

Moral Theology and Political Economy, Value in. By Rev. T. Slater, 

s.j. ........ 193 

Digitized by {jOOQle 




noted anO (ftuertea — 

Ltfubot (By Bey. P. O'Leary, d.d.) : — 

Agnus Dei, The Division of the ..... 658 

Holy Communion in a Private House .... 455 

Matins and Lauds, Anticipation of ... 361, 451 

Marriage Service within the * Tempus Clausum ’ - . 453 

Rosary during Mass ...... 455 

Sacred Heart, Votive Mass of 454 

Stations of th Cross, Removal of - - - - - 558 

Votive Mass of Sacred Heart ..... 454 

Thbolooy (By Bev. Daniel Mannix, d.d.) : — 

Abstinence, Law of, during Advent .... 557 

Confession, Integrity of ----- - 444 

Converts, Reoeption of, into the Church .... 667 

Integrity of Confession ...... 444 

noticed of JSoohd : — 

Andreis, De, Life of Very Rev. Felix, 188 ; Bible, The, and Rationalism, 
378 ; Cardinal Meignan, 91 ; Carmel, A Mediaeval Hero of, 286 ; Catholic 
Creed, The, 187 ; Christian Doctrine, Exposition of, 188 ; Church Music 
Series, 372 ; Concilium Tridentinum, Diariorum, Actorum, etc., 476 ; 
Confession Book for Little Ones, 575 ; Faith and Folly, 94 ; First 
Confession, 575; 'Forgive us our Trespasses,' 575; Four Litanies of the 
B. V. M., 96 ; Geographical and Historical School Reader, 377 ; History 
of the Passion, 384; Hymnus ‘ Pange Lingua,’ 191 ; Intemperance, 94 ; 
Irish College in Paris, 373 ; Magister Adest, 383 ; Meditations on the Life, 
Teaching, and Passion of Jesus Christ, 95 ; Meditations on the Duties of 
Religious, 479 ; Meditations and Exercises for the Illuminative Way, 382 ; 
Missa in Honorem Sti Benedict!, 192; Moriarty, Dr., Sermons, 287 ; 
Novum Testamentum, Graece et Latine, editio oritica altera, 673 ; Old 
Testament, Special Introduction to the Books of the, 567 ; Plain Sermons, 
192; Roads to Rome. 477; Russell, Life of Mother Mary Baptist, 191 ; 
Scale of Perfection, 190; Simple Confession Book, 575 ; Terra Pateraa 
Vale, 478 ; Twelve Trios for the Organ, 96 ; Ward, Mary, A Foundress of 
the Seventeenth Century, 187 ; Wer War der Verfasser der Nachfolge 
Christi, 573 Where is the Church of Christ ? 95. 

Notre Dame de Fourvifcre. By E. Leahy - 116 

Origin of Religion, The. By Rev. P. Forde - - 132 

Papacy, Is Rome Necessarily the Seat of the ? By Rev. Hugh Pope.o.p. 330 

Political Eoonomy and Moral Theology, Value in. By Rev. T. Slater, 

SJ. -------- 193 

Religion, The Development of. By Rev. J. M‘Caflrey 1 

Religion, The Origin of. By Rev. P. Ford - 132 

Religion, The Relation of Ethics to. By W. Vesey Hague, m.a. - 205 

Scapulars, The Significance and Use of the. By Rev. L. Oosterlaan - 311 

Synoptic Problem, The. By Rev. Thomas J. Butler 64 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

Digitized by 


" lit ChrutimniOm H Rommm nits." " As you are children of Christ, so bn you children of Rome.** 

Ex Dictu S. iWnftf, in Libra Armacmno, foL 9. 

The Irish 

Ecclesiastical Record 

9 fffanttfrtg Journal, ttnUer Episcopal Sanction. 

E&Irtj.&mrtfi gear - ] •••, v r fourty Suits 

No. 403. J JULY, 19OI. I Vol x. 

The Development of Religion: A Criticism. 

Rev. J. M'Caffrey , Maynooth College. 

Dr. Salmon’s ' Infallibility.’ 

Very Rev. Dr. Murphy , V.F., Macroom. 

The Synoptic Problem. 

Rev. Thomas J. Butler , Upholland College , Liverpool. 


Glasgow University and the Pope. Jubilee Visits made Processionally, The Capuchins 
and the Holy Office. Letter of His Holiness Pope Leo XIIL to the Cardinal Patriarch 
of Lisbon. The Pauline Privilege. Effects of the Pauline Privilege. Condemnation 
of New Devotions. Certain Powers of the Vicar-General. Pope Leo XIII, praises 
tbs Gregorian Chant of Solesmes. The Conclusion of the Litany of Loretto. The 
Prayer’to St Joseph during the Month of October. The Prayers after Mass. 

Notices of Books. 

La Cardinal Meignan. Intemperance. Faith and Folly. Meditations on the Life, Teaching 
and Passion !of Jesus Christ, Where is the Church of Christ? Twelve Trios for 
the Organ. Four Litanies of the B.V.M. 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


SUBSCRIPTION i Twelve ShiBmg* jer Annum, Bui Ft**, peyble m mdvame 

Nihil Obziat. 

C*n*or Dt+* 


Archie}* Dublin*, 
Utbemiee Prime*. 





XT A T,, 461 , 600 , 000 . 

FUM 1 )*, £ 085 , 000 . 



mSEIt CmMIm Xm|V rwmtm sf 


SiHriMfN^ Mtd t f w h Mmtss imsOssbism Amo 

ancrn coitekti collxhi, ud sciools ah taku at lowest kata 

JbfM Mrmmck- 1*, Mn«AU M}UA1B, NORTH. CW*-S1, SOUTH HALL. 


Private Residence for Cure of Excessive Use of 

JSpeo lal Troatmont for Aioohoi/o Dlmoaomo has beta 
established in Glasgow since August, 1898 ; in DUBLIN since August, 1899, 

) Duration of Treatment— THREE WEEKS ONLY. 


Tsrms mmd mU imfsrmmUsn fmrmshsd by ihs Mmnmgtr «r S s sr sb m t y , 




AO ssmmmnis mtisn* strictly priumts* 


By every 


PHcm from 

£10 to 300 Qulneas. 

By every 

Prices from 

6 to aoo 0«h 

8 V 

Prices from 

3 to I0O Outness. 


Applied to ell Instrument# 
front 10/- per Month. 




OIA PM o moAo Bquot to Now mt Saoll Coot* OtAoro onA 
rocolro immoAMo o»4 cototal mttoatlom 





Digitized by VjOOv LC 



W ELL-NIGH fifteen hundred years ago the novel 
doctrines propounded by a stranger monk in the 
very citadel of Christian unity created confusion 
for a time and bitter dissensions in the religious 
world, and called forth, perhaps the ablest of the many able 
men who have devoted themselves to the defence of the 
Catholic faith. But, though Pelagius and his opponents 
have long since passed away, the errors and the doctrines 
still remain — the one to be accepted and sustained by those 
who think, as Pelagius thought, that man is self-sufficient ; 
the other to be upheld by all loyal children of the Church. 
The same war is still being waged, though, doubtlessly, 
the weapons are somewhat changed. The enemies may not 
profess to be followers of Pelagius ; they are evolutionists, 
philologists, ethnologists; but what matters the name under 
which they appear if they endeavour to capture the very 
position against which Pelagius vainly struggled. The 
truth, in itself always one, may be attacked in numberless 
ways ; one species of error makes its appearance when another 
is disappearing before the light. Yesterday the Christian 
apologist had to meet Pelagius and his school ; to-day he 
must defend his doctrines against the anthropologists. 

The anthropologists tell us that progress is the universal 
law of nature; that man himself is but the development 


Digitized by ^ooQle 



and, in a certain sense, the perfection of lower and less 
perfect forms of animal life, differing from the brutes of the 
field in degree only, not in kind ; and that what he is to-day 
and what he has, he is and he has only through the natural 
process of evolution. What is true in the physical world, 
they say, holds good for every other department. The 
family is but the civilized outcome of the days of ‘ free 
intercourse,* for the existence of which McLennan boldly 
contends ; the primitive hide-covered tentsof patriarchal days, 
or the blackened caves in which dwelt the Odullamites of 
old, have given way to the neatly-kept cottage or the princely 
mansion ; the complex system of government now adopted 
in the Old World, as well as in the New, may be traced 
back, step by step, to the ages when the clan was in itself 
the state, and each chieftain a royal dictator ; the code of 
laws regulating the administration of justice which is the 
pride of the English jurist to-day, as it was the pride of the 
Homan in the days of the Emperor Justinian, once differed 
little from the summary procedure of a mining court in 
California or Western Australia. Where be they who were 
once the leaders of thought in the arts and sciences ? How 
have their conclusions fared at the hands of modern scholars? 
Their cherished theories are rudely thrown aside as the day- 
dreams of inexperienced children ; and who can say but 
another generation may deal with the moderns as they have 
dealt with those who have gone before ? Could one of the men 
who once roamed the sloping plains of Asia, before the Aryan 
race had separated for the west and the south, be brought 
to life again, and visit some of the great industrial centres 
of England, or Germany, or America, he could hardly 
believe that this was the world of bis boyhood and his 
manhood, these the people with the manners of whose 
ancestors he was conversant. 

If natural development be the rule in every other depart- 
ment, argues the anthropologist, why should other forces be 
invoked to explain the growth of religions ? The present 
great religious systems of the world can only be the result 
of evolution ; and, as in the animal world the more complex 
and perfect organisms can be traced back through gradually 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



deteriorating forms of life, till at last one arrives at the 
simple and almost inorganic protoplasm, so, too, the most 
highly developed systems of worship are but the steady 
growth of ages, and the many phases through which they 
have passed may be evident to every student of the science 
of religion. 

Religion, then, they assert, has had its developments. 
One system has given place to another ; but the general 
tendency, in spite of occasional lapses, has always been 
towards something higher and better. All are agreed about 
the general proposition ; but when they come to discuss the 
order in which these different forms appeared, there are as 
many theories put lorward as there are writers on the 
subject. Herbert Spencer’s may be taken as typical of all 
the others. He asserts that animism, or the worship of 
spirits and the souls of departed ancestors, was the primeval 
and lowest form of cult ; that from this beginning idolatry, 
fetichism, and nature worship were gradually developed 
during the lapse of ages. In this latter stage men paid 
their homage to the sun and moon and stars, to the earth, 
the mountains, the great rivers and the rushing torrents. 
Carried away by the fervour of their imagination, they soon 
endowed these inanimate creatures with all the attributes of 
real, living human beings like themselves; and thus religious 
worship assumed the form of anthropomorphism, from 
which were soon evolved the higher kinds of Polytheism. 
Polytheism, however, could not satisfy the cravings of the 
philosopher’s heart ; it could not stand before the researches 
of his logical mind. The multitude of gods dependent on 
one another was not susceptible of rational defence, and so 
men began to centre all power in the highest of their 
deities, and him they made king and ruler of the rest. Thus 
Monotheism appeared upon the scene, and who knows into 
what this may develop with the development of civilization? 
Pantheism or materialism may be, they say, the religion of 
the future . 1 

In explaining particular forms of worship they are 

1 Spencer’s Sociology ; ' Religion : A Retrospect and Prospect,’ Nineteenth 
Century , January, 1884 ; Religion and Morality, Rev. James Fox, D.D. A ver) 
valuable work from which we have quoted freely in this Essay. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



equally dogmatic. Judaism, as they call the system con- 
tained in the Old Testament, is but the development of 
idolatry and Polytheism, traces of which may be found even 
in the Sacred Books. From Judaism, according to some, 
the transition to Christianity required but the presence of a 
great reformer, such as Christ ; whilst others prefer to find 
the origin of the Christian worship in the Buddhism or 
Parseeism flourishing in India centuries before. Just as 
Christ appeared in Judea, and by the sheer force of His 
towering intellect formulated a creed eminently suited to 
the tastes and aspirations of His fellowmen, so, too, in other 
circumstances, and with further developments of civilization 
and culture, other leaders may arise who will sweep 
Christianity before them, as it has swept the pagan rites. 
Thus religion is the work of man, and no place can be found 
for revelation — at least for revelation understood as Catholics 
understand it. 

Max Muller, Kuhn, and the philological schools of which 
they are the leaders, put forward other systems and other 
arguments ; but their opinions shall be better discussed in 
another paper. It is better, then, to deal directly only with 
the evolutionary theories, though, no doubt, many of the 
arguments adduced will apply with equal force to both. 

The question between the Catholic theologian and the 
anthropologist is whether there can be real progress in 
religious knowledge, so that mankind, or even a great 
body of the human race, could ever attain, by their own 
natural powers, a fairly correct idea of God and the moral 
law. The anthropologist asserts that the existence of the 
fact precludes all discussion as to its possibility. History, 
he says, shows us that men have begun with the lowest and 
crudest notions of divinity and morality, and have gradually 
risen, by their own unaided efforts, to that Monotheism and 
moral code which is the fruit of modern civilization. No 
doubt the progress has not been without interruption. 
Frequent and almost inexplicable retrogressions are only 
too apparent; but the general tendency has been ever 
upwards. As the incoming tide appears to the onlooker at 
one time to advance, at another to recede, whilst the current, 

Digitized by 




setting shorewards steadily, rolls its way, so, too, the 
religious tendencies of the world seem to the student of 
history to suddenly rise to a wonderful height, and as 
suddenly to fall back again to the lowest stages, without any 
real interruption of the steady movement towards perfection 
and truth. It may be necessary, in the course of this essay, 
to determine clearly what is meant by progress in religion ; 
but here it is sufficient to accept the notions put forward by 
the opponents. The several stages of growth have been 
already indicated. 

Now, Catholics may freely concede that in a certain 
sense there has been evolution of worship just as there may 
have been evolution in the physical world, but not an 
evolution that is independent of Divine interposition. They 
admit that Judaism was not the work of a day ; that from 
Moses to the Machabees the system was being built up piece 
by piece ; that Christ appeared only to develop and perfect 
what had already been in existence for centuries ; and that 
even in Christianity there is a certain capability of exposition 
and development. Again, they may freely grant that inde- 
pendently of revelation there can be and there has been an 
evolution of doctrine, at least, there has been change ; but, 
leaving aside for the moment the religions of the Jews and 
Christians, they may well deny that the change has been 
towards something better. It has been, generally speaking, 
degeneration not progress. Not indeed that the truths 
themselves exceed the powers of the human intellect, or 
that the philosopher who has devoted his attention to their 
discovery could not formulate a moderately perfect system, 
but that the difficulties retarding their propagation are so 
enormous that it is impossible for his .teaching to seriously 
affect any race or body of men. In other words, whatever 
about the individual, for mankind generally religion has 
degenerated rather than progressed. This is the doctrine 
which may be opposed to the anthropological theories. Let 
us now examine the proofs adduced in favour of their views. 

The very foundation of the system is that evolution is 
the law everywhere we turn ; why should it not also hold 
good for religion? Indeed, we are not left to surmise that 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



this was the principal motive which urged them to pursue 
their researches in the domains of religion, or the principal 
proof to which they would refer all who might be inclined 
to waver. Herbert Spencer tells us in his system of 
‘ Synthetic Philosophy ’ that he will never rest content 
till he had applied the principles of evolution to every 
other science; and how successfully he fulfilled that 
promise his works on Biology, Pyschology, Sociology, 
Ceremonial and Ecclesiastical Institutions amply prove. 
Huxley, a master, no doubt, in his favourite study of 
Biology must need square all other departments to fit 
in with his theory. Brinton is even more explicit when 
he grayely informs us, after he had been forced to admit 
the non-existence of the most important link in his chain 
of argument, that though he was unable to offer any proof, 
it must have been so because evolution demanded it. 1 
That really puts their case in a nutshell. There must 
have been evolution in religion ; therefore there has betn 
evolution. So confident is Dr. Menzies on this point that 
he asserts the evolutionists need offer no proof ; it devolves 
upon the other side to show that religion has been exempted 
from the general law of v human progress. 2 

Now, surely evolution, at least evolution such as 
Darwin, Huxley, and their disciples would have us accept, 
has not yet been proved in a way that forces or even 
demands our assent. Do not scientists of equal ability and 
equal research openly scout it? and if they do why should 
men be forced to part with their own cherished beliefs, with 
the beliefs, it may be, of their fathers for countless genera- 
tions, to accept what is at best but the conclusions of an 
unproved, and, as • most people would conteud, an 
unprovable hypothesis? Their theories on the religion of 
man are but the natural consequeuce of their doctrines of 
his origin, for the latter of which no better proof than the 
‘ it must be so * of its authors has yet been offered. 

Again, even if it were freely admitted — as it should 
be admitted — that there has been marvellous progress in 

1 Religion of Primitive Ptopleit. New York : 1^97. 

2 History of Religion, Allan Menzies, D. D. London: lyOU. 

Digitized by 




social institutions and in arts and sciences, it ought to be 
remembered, too, that progress in civilization and culture 
does not always entail progress in religion. Indeed, looking 
at the matter historically, whatever may be the explanation, 
the contrary would seem to be nearer the truth. The 
Homans of the days of Crosar Augustus, were not surely less 
civilized aud less cultured than were their rude forefathers 
of five centuries before, and yet who would compare the 
simple, moral, worshipful lives of the people of the early 
Roman Republic with the lives of their descendants in 
these later days of corruption, debauchery, and sin. 
Grecian religion, too, fell before the spread of Grecian 
culture f and in a land far removed from both the same 
effects may be observed. Writers, for example, on Central 
America, tell us how the rudest and least civilized tribes of 
that country possessed a> system of religion comparatively 
pure, whilst, on the other hand, the Aztecs, a highly cultured 
race with a governing constitution which many modern 
states might usefully imitate — freely indulged in the most 
hideous excesses under the name of worship . 1 

‘ Anyhow/ says Max Muller, no advocate of the 
Catholic teaching, ‘even if it could be proved that there has 
been a continuous progress in everything else, no one could 
maintain that the same applies to religion/* The reason of 
the difference is evident. Man, though eager in the pursuit 
of secular knowledge, is but little disposed to accept truths 
which impose a serious obligation and restraint unless they 
can be forced upon him by incontestable evidence, and from 
the nature of the doctrines themselves it is clear that such 
proofs cannot be forthcoming. Doubt and denial are always 
possible. Hence, the most cherished doctrines of one 
generation are rudely rejected in the next ; inquiry is begun 
anew, other conclusions are arrived at only to be set aside 
by another age, and so the endless examination proceeds 
without fruit and without advance. Thus, the very founda- 
tions of the anthropological contention are far from certain . 3 
Let us see the direct evidence. 

1 The Making of Religion, Andrew Lang. London : 1900, 

* The Origin of Religion, p. 6N. London: 1882 

3 St Thoman’8 Suwunt ; Mazzelti, Tic Relijione et Eeclesia. 

Digitized by AjOoq le 



Sorely the anthropologists should admit that there are 
enormous difficulties to be overcome by the student of 
religions, difficulties such as would prevent anyone but 
the most prejudiced theorist from laying down dogmatic 
definitions. Though we are separated from 1 the primitive 
man ’ by a stretch of time compared to which, as Spencer 
says, twenty thousand years seem relatively small, and 
though, according to their own concessions, man has been 
undergoing a constant change during all these centuries, 
the anthropologist will confidently undertake to do what a 
friend could not do with his living friend — to lay bare in its 
entirety his religious consciousness . 1 A priori , then, one 
might well be inclined to consider their task an impossible 
one, but a careful examination of the argument put forward 
will show into what curious positions their preconceived 
notions have led them. 

Since the primitive man about whose religion they feel 
so confident is so far separated from our days, only two 
methods of proving their case were possible. They could 
take up the accounts of savage life left us by explorers who 
had discovered and studied their habits, and from the 
religious convictions therein recorded argue back to the 
religious convictions of mankind. What these tribes are 
to-day, they contend, all our forefathers once were, and the 
several stages through which we watch them passing, as we 
watch a hive of bees busily constructing their honeycomb, 
represent the several stages through which mankind has 
advanced. Or, they might select the great nations of 
antiquity, and from a careful study of their records produce 
proofs of the gradual progress which they advocate. Now, 
it can be shown beyond the shadow of doubt that either 
method of argument involves a fatal fallacy, and does but 
little credit to the logical abilities of its propounders ; and, 
besides, even if this style of demonstration were perfectly 
valid, a serious examination whether of savage life or of 
ancient records serves only to overthrow and discredit their 

1 Btligion and Morality , Rev. J. Fox, D.D. New York: 1899. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



The first method is one in which many anthropologists 
seem to glory, and yet it appears to be perfectly evident, 
according to their own admissions, that no conclusive argu- 
ment can be drawn from such a source. What right have 
they to assume that the savage of to-day, rude and depraved 
as he may be, is a fair specimen of the primeval man ? Is 
he not as far removed from the common source as we our- 
selves are, and through what interminable processes of 
advancement and degradation may he not have gone in all 
these ages ? They admit themselves that there might have 
been retrogression — Spencer certainly does 1 — and how, theu, 
can they deduce any argument in favour of their view from 
the religion of the savage? What if that religion were but 
the corruption of an earlier and a better day ? 

The habits of savages without a history [says Le Page Renouf], 
are not in themselves evidences which can in any way be depended 
upon. To take it for granted that what the savagos now are, 
perhaps, after milleniums of degradation, all other peoples must 
have been, and that modes of thought through which they are 
now passing have been passed through by others, is a most 
unscientific assumption. You will seldom meet with it in any 
book or essay without also finding proof that the writer did not 
know how to deal with historical evidence . 2 

Tylor 3 is constrained to admit that the degeneration 
theory may claim such belief — no doubt, in some cases with 
justice, as mutilated and perverted remains of a higher 
religion — whilst Max Muller condemns, in no unmeasured 
terms, such an illogical method of arguing . 4 Surely, then, 
one may well be excused for venturing to question its^ 

The very same fallacy appears to be involved in their 
arguments drawn from the great nations of antiquity. 
Long before the dawn of history, according to themselves, 
ages upon ages may have rolled by, race may have succeeded 
race, religion followed religion. How, then, can they build 
up so confidently from the records of history that progressive 
religious system which they propound? Might not the 

1 Sociology, p. 10G. 

* The Religion of Ancient Egypt , Lect. iv. 

* Primitive Culture. New York : 1899. 

4 Lectureson the Origin of Religion , p. 68. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



advocates of * Degeneration ' say that these lowly forms 
which you assume to be the beginning of religions are but 
the deteriorated beliefs that have trickled down through 
ages of error? One position seems to be as reasonable as 
the other. 

Again, even the argument drawn from the manners 
and customs of savage tribes were perfectly valid, yet the 
difficulties in obtaining reliable information about their 
religious belief's are so overwhelming that one wonders how 
light-heartedly the anthropologist proceeds to construct his 
‘religious tree.’ Few men care to publish to the world 
their religious convictions ; and the savages are no excep- 
tion to the general rule. They will make no suggestions 
themselves, but will agree with everything that their inter- 
viewer proposes, be he a traditionalist or anthropologist, 
aud the representatives of both schools go their way rejoicing 
that now, at last, proofs unassailable have been found. A 
savage,’ says Max Muller, ‘is the most obliging creature in the 
world, for he will do all that any anthropologist wishes him 
to do.’ 1 2 In proof of this difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence 
one might well cite the numerous varying and oftentimes 
contradictory reports left us by different writers about the 
manners and customs and religions of the very same races. 
Let us see how they agree among themselves about the 

If their theory be true, that progress in religion is in 
proportion, generally speaking, to progress in culture and 
civilization, it would be natural to find no traces of religion 
among the very degraded races, the peoples most closely 
resembling the brutes of the field, from which they persist- 
ently claim descent. Indeed, many anthropologists contended 
that this was so, and appealed to the testimony of explorers 
in favour of their views. Sir John Lubbock * adduced 
numerous examples of tribes without any religious worship, 
and Sir John is quoted approvingly bv Herbert Spencer. 
Darwin, too, held that there were races without a 

1 Natural Religion , p. 212. 

2 Origin of Civilization and Primitive Condition of Man, New York : 

Digitized by AjOOQle 



God. Payne, in his history of America, 1 2 appears to make 
the same assertion, and Payne is relied upon as a trust- 
worthy witness for other parts of their theory. Now, let 
us place in juxtaposition to all that, the opinions of their 
own brother anthropologists, critics whom they must admit 
to be neither unscientific nor unfavourably disposed. 

Quatrefages, an eminent ethnologist, and Professor of 
Anthropology in one of the French universities, says : — 

We nowhere meet with Atheism except in an erratic condition. 
In every place and at all times the mass of the population have 
escaped it; we nowhere find either a great human race, or even 
a division, however unimportant, of the race, professing Atheism. 
Such is the result of an inquiry which I am justified in calling 
conscientious, and which was begun before I assumed the 
Professorship of Anthropology. It is true that on these re- 
searches I have proceeded and I have formed my conclusions, 
not as a believer, or as a philosopher, who are all more or less 
under the influence of an ideal which they accept or oppose, but 
exclusively as a naturalist whoso chief aim is to seek for and to stato 

The statement [writes Professor Tide] that there are nations 
or tribes who possess no religion rests either on inaccurate 
observation, or on a confusion of ideas. No tribe or nation has yet 
been met with destitute of a belief in any higher being, and 
travellers who asserted their existence have been afterwards 
refuted by facts. 9 

The same opinion is expressed in almost similar terms 
by Flint, Tylor, Reveille ; and even Brinton quails before 
the facts, though he sorrowfully declares that it must have 
been so even though the traces have disappeared. It might 
be added that Be Harlez, in his address to the Parliament 
of Religious assembled at Chicago, in 1895, unhesitatingly 
declared that there is no people without a religion, however 
low it may have fallen in the scale of civilization. If, then, 
the anthropologists have been, deceived about such an 
important point as this, they can hardly expect that men 
must accept their hypotheses as infallible utterances. 

But examining for ourselves the accounts given us of 
savage customs, we find that Monotheism — which they 

1 History of America , vol. i. p 389. 

2 The Outlines, p. 6; ap. Max Muller, The Science of Rdtgion. 

Digitized by CjOOQle 


contend to be the perfection of civilization and culture, the 
latest development of evolution — flourished amongst the 
rudest specimens of humanity when they were first dis- 
covered ; nay more, that the knowledge of the moral law, of 
their duties to God and their fellowman, universal amongst 
the people, was as correct as may be fouqd among the most 
highly cultured races. Where, then, be their theories of 
progress ? 

The Australian tribes are, perhaps, the lowest, in the 
grade of civilization. Having no houses or settled abodes, 
ignorant of even the rudiments of agriculture, possessing no 
knowledge of metals, or pottery, or bows and arrows, they 
might certainly sit as the models for Rousseau’s 1 primitive 
mau.’ Yet amongst these wild rovers of the wood we find 
a worship of a Supreme Being who can and will punish all 
transgressions against the tribal ordinances. He is spoken 
of only in whispers. His name is far too sacred to be intro- 
duced into every idle conversation ; and it is only the 
initiated who are permitted to know him and to learn his 
moral code. At this ceremony of initiation, writes Palmer, 
advice is given so kindly, fatherly, and impressive, as often 
to soften the heart and draw tears from the youth who is 
being received. He is exhorted to guard against selfishness, 
to love all mankind, to see no one suffering where he could 
furnish relief. That the Australians had but little confi- 
dence in the ‘ Progress Theory ’ may be gathered from the 
fact that the elders thought it necessary to put the young 
men through a form of purification, in order to banish the 
selfish and irreligious spirit learned from their more civilized 
guests. They are warned to obey the old, to share with all 
their friends, to live peaceably, not to interfere with young 
girls or married women, to observe the laws regulating food. 
No doubt mixed up with these doctrines may be found foolish 
mythological stories. Yet, here we see amongst the rudest 
people a religion that, according to the anthropologists, 
should only be associated with the highest form of culture. 
How do they explain this apparent contradiction ? Herbert 
Spencer does not even deign to mention the Australian 
Supreme Being. Tylor, in his lengthened treatise, entitled 

Digitized by AjOOQle 



Primitive Culture , devotes but little space to this Aus- 
tralian belief, whilst Huxley boldly denies its existence in 
the face of all evidence to the contrary. ‘ Theology/ he 
writes, ‘ in its simplest form, such as may be met with 
among the Australian tribes, is a mere belief in the 
existence, powers, and dispositions, generally malignant, of 
ghost-like entities who may be propitiated or scared away, 
but no cult properly so called can be said to exist.’ 1 Yet these 
are the infallible scholars whose teaching men must accept. 

Again, if we search the accounts left us by travellers who 
have lived in the closest intercourse with the African tribes, 
we shall find every where traces of the belief in one God, the 
great lawgiver who will reward and punish men accord- 
ing to their works. In Guiana, among the Zulus and 
Hottentots, away in the depths of Central Africa, the story is 
still the same. Sometimes this belief is a strong and living 
reality, sometimes it is fast disappearing before the worship 
of the family spirits, who are far more easily propitiated than 
the great Just Ruler who is above. Even the anthropologists 
themselves admit the prevalence of such an idea. Do they 
contend that it is the result of evolution ? If it is, it should 
be the latest, the best, the most agreeable to the nature of 
man, the object of worship that should be uppermost in his 
mind. Why, then, should the notion of the Great Ruler be 
gradually fading from view whilst the worship of departed 
ancestors is spreading and developing? Which does the 
evidence seem to favour — progress or retrogression ? 2 

In America, too, the anthropologists can find little 
ground for rejoicing. From north to south the story is ever 
the same — one Supreme Being who rules all mankind and 
watches their every action. In Greenland, amongst the 
North American Indians of Virginia, the Pawnees of Kansas, 
the Blackfeets of the Missouri, in Mexico and Peru, even in 
distant Terra-del-Fuego, there is the clearest evidence for 
asserting a belief in one great master who has laid down the 
law for his children, and who would be angry if they did not 
observe it. To him they looked for help in all their 

1 The Making of Religion, Andrew Lang. 2 Opus cit. supra, 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



difficulties, and how far their notions differed from ours may 
be gathered from the fact that the Pawnees of Kansas, for 
example, addressed in prayer their Great Spirit as Atius-ta- 
Kawa, ‘ Our Father Who art in all places.’ Such doctrines 
as these found amongst the most primitive savage tribes do 
not seem to lend much support to the theory of ‘Progress .’ 1 

Now, turning to the great nations of antiquity let us begin 
with Egypt. It surely is a land which deserves the attention 
of the ethnologist. Centuries before the Christ appeared in 
Judea, aye, centuries before Abraham crossed over from Ur 
of Chaldea to Palestine, Egypt was the garden of civiliza- 
tion. It was the home of learning and culture when the 
great nations of modern days had not yet emerged from the 
darkness of barbarism. No wonder, then, that scholars 
should have turned their attention to unravel the mysteries 
of this favoured land, and to dig out from the depths of its 
dry and sandy soil the monuments of the past. 

It cannot be denied that according to the ancient records 
Polytheism was the external form of worship. The prin- 
cipal gods number, at least, seventy or eighty, whilst there 
were thousands of other deities, each of whom had to be 
propitiated by sacrifice and prayer. Neither, however, can 
h be denied that amidst their confusion of gods and 
Goddesses, traces of Monotheism can be detected at every 
turn. Thus, in the Maxims of Ptatopeh, which is regarded 
as the most ancient piece of writing in the world, its author 
having lived before the building of the first pyramid, God 
simply, not this or that god, is spoken of. One may find 
such expressions as the following : ‘ If anyone bear himself 
proudly he will be humbled by God ; God loveth the obedient 
and he hateth the disobedient ; the field which the great 
God has given thee to till.’ In a very ancient papyrus, now 
preserved at St. Petersburg, we find : ‘ Praised be to God 
for all his gifts ; God knows the wicked ; he smites the 
wicked unto blood/ Again it is said : — 

In making thy oblations to God beware of what he abhors ; 
Thou shalt adore in his name ; It is he who granteth genius with 

1 The Making of A. L ing, 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



endless aptitudes ; Who inagnifieth him who becometh great ; 
Thou art come to man’s estate, thou art married and hast a house, 
but never do thou forget the painful labour which thy mother en- 
dured, nor all the salutary care which she has taken of thee ; Take 
heed lest she have cause to complain of thee, lest she should raise 
her hands to God and ho should listen to her prayer . 1 

Was it here a case of Monotheism striving to supplant 
Polytheism, or was it not rather an example of pure Mono- 
theism vanishing before its own degenerate offspring? On 
this point scholars are divided into hostile camps. Maspero 
maintains that the Egyptians were only struggling after 
the unity of God, while such eminent scholars as Pierret 
and Emmanuel Rouge fearlessly assert that Monotheism 
was the primal element from which the other degenerate 
forms have sprung. Le Page Renouf, if he does not embrace 
the doctrine of Rouge, certainly clearly indicates that all his 
sympathies tend in that direction . 2 It may then be fairly 
claimed that the weight of authority favours the priority 
of Monotheism ; and, if we consider for a moment that 
all the great deities were but the most astonishing external 
manifestations of the Supreme Creative Being, we can easily 
understand how the people may have at first worshipped 
the one God under each of these aspects, and afterwards as 
the unity of God gradually faded from the minds of their 
descendants each one of these was regarded in its turn as 
Supreme. Philological developments, too, seem to favour 
the same conclusion. Besides, the whole story of Egyptian 
religion in after days is one fearful downward rush, and why 
should it not be assumed that the same is true from the 
beginning ? 

Whatever may be said on this question, there can be no 
doubt about the purity of the moral code. Man is dependent 
upon God whose law he is bound to obey. If he does so he 
shall be well rewarded ; but if he fail to comply dire punish- 
ment awaits him. In the Book of the Dead the judgment 
immediately after death is clearly portrayed. There is 
Osiris, the God of Justice, with the scales in his hands, in 

1 Religion and Morality, Dr. Fox. 

a Lecture* on Religion of Egypt . 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



one of which is placed man’s heart as representing his 
nature and works, and in the other is placed justice. 
Attendant deities stand around to accuse or defend. The 
soul trembles before its judge, and loudly calls for mercy. If 
it is found free from fault it passes into bliss ; if guilty it 
passes into prison where it is punished not only by ‘ the 
gnawing worm ’ of the Scriptures, but also by fearful bodily 
sufferings which last, if not for ever, at least for ages, when 
the soul suddenly ceases to exist. Lenormaut clearly proves 
that not only were the more grievous sins, such as murder, 
adultery, unchastity, calumny, injustice, forbidden, but the 
working a labourer too hard, wilful exaggeration, thoughts 
unworthy of God, idle words, were crimes sufficient to merit 
the gravest punishments. The duties of parents and children 
are frequently inculcated ; temperance, justice, sobriety, are 
held up as things to be striven after, while slothfulness, 
pride, and strife are explicitly reprobated. The inscriptions 
on the tombs are at least useful in determining what a man 
should be, though there is sometimes a wide difference 
between ‘the was’ and ‘the ought to have been.' Here 
are a few specimens : ‘ I was bread to the hungry, water to 

the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a refuge to him that was 
in want. That which I did to him, the great God has done 
to me.’ ‘ My heart inclined to the right while I was yet a 
child, not yet instructed as to the right and good, and what 
my heart dictated I failed not to perform, and God rewarded 
me for this, rejoicing me with happiness .’ 1 

Gradually, however, a change came over the country. 
Polytheism became more and more corrupt till, at last, 
Pantheism takes its place. If Pantheism is to be the 
religion of the future, we are far behind the Egyptians of 
old. The notion of a Supreme Ruler — author of a pure 
moral code — seems to have steadily vanished from the 
people’s minds. In the religious hymns and in the epitaphs 
Pantheism is clearly indicated after the nineteenth dynasty, 
whilst the idea of right and wrong does not seem to have 
been any longer prevalent. The worship of animals, of 
cows, bulls, sheep, cats, mice, always flourishing to some 

1 Religion and Md'ality. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



i r 

extent, now became the real worship of Egypt ; and with 
the disappearance of a divine sanction for the moral code all 
restraints appear to have been removed. The corruptions 
of Egypt in these later days were hardly equalled by the 
corruptions of the worst days of Pagan Rome. The goddess 
Hathor, so popular with the degenerate* Egyptians, is called 
by Juvenal the Isiac procuress, and Ovid in his Ars Amettori * 
recommends her temples as the proper place for a man to 
provide himself with a concubine . 1 Perhaps, our opponents, 
in spite of their previous admissions, would contend 
that the path from Monotheism to Polytheism, from Poly- 
theism to Pantheism, and Rationalism, and Materialism ; 
from a pure moral code, sanctioned and maintained by a 
Supreme Eternal Being, to a corruption and degradation of 
which one is almost afraid to speak, is the path of progress. 
If they do, the history of Egypt is the ground on which they 
should fight their battle. Others may not see in this the 
©volution for which they contend, but an evolution which is 
steadily making towards the less perfect, so that the general 
tendency is ever downwards. Are they not justified by the 
facts ? 

China is another interesting land, but the unravelling 
of Chinese history is not a work to be lightly undertaken. 
Here, it will be possible only to briefly sketch the religious 
development in so far as it bears directly on the present 
discussion, and the difficulty of the undertaking may be 
understood if we but remember that, while the early mis- 
sionaries claimed to have found the clearest traces of the 
great mysteries of the Catholic faith, the anthropologists 
have not feared to assert that Materialism was the religion 
of China long before the dawn of history. Perhaps the 
truth lies between. 

The Chinese sacred books, three .in number — the Shu 
- King, the Shi King, and the Yi King — do not profess to be 
religious treatises in the same sense as the Christian Bible. 
They are rather historical records, dealing with religion 
only incidentally. In these it is clearly indicated that from 

VOL. x. 

1 Reliyion and Morality, p. 62. 


Digitized by LjOoqL e 



the earliest time the worship of the one Supreme Being 
flourished throughout the country. Shangti — the name 

given to their god — watches over all things, rewarding and 
ehastising. He loves those who act according to his laws, 
and invites them to live for ever with him after death. 
Strange to say, there 'is no mention of any punishment for 
sin in the next world ; and, however one is to account for it, 
the omission can hardly be accidental. There is, too, the 
clearest evidence of the existence of a highly developed 
moral code. Reverence and obedience towards God and 
all whom He sets up to rule are inculcated, love of parents 
and attention to their wishes, temperance, justice, truth, 
humility, forgiveness of injuries, are highly recommended. 
Nor is it the mere external act alone of which there is 
question ; the internal spirit is principally required, and all 
sins of thought and desire are strictly forbidden. 

The existence of this pure moral code cannot be denied, 
but the personality of Shangti has been often questioned by 
those with whose theories his existence cannot be easily 
squared. Legge, the Professor of Chinese at Oxford, who 
has devoted his abilities to unravelling the many problems 
presented by the history of China, has collected together 
innumerable texts to prove that Shangti was the exact 
synonym for our name, God. For example : ‘ King Wan is 
on high ; oh ! bright is he in heaven. King Wan ascends 
and descends upon the right hand of God.’ Surely this god 
looks like a personal being. No doubt alongside the name 
Shangti we And Tien, the heaven, also recognised as a 
divinity, and put on the same level as Shangti ; but Legge 
proves conclusively that Tien was the equivalent of Shangti 
only when it was used metaphorically, as we ourselves 
sometimes use it, for example, when we say, ‘ Heaven’s will 
be done;’ but when it merely signified the material heavens 
it was not treated as a divinity, or as synonymous with 
Shangti. Others, perceiving the weakness of this argument, 
prefer to admit the personality of Shangti, but contend that 
he was only the god of the rich and the learned. Unfor- 
tunately, however, for the defenders of this view texts can 
be adduced from the sacred books to prove that Shangti was 

Digitized by 



also the god of the poor and the ignorant, else why should 
it be stated that ‘the poor people with their wives and their 
children mule moan to Shangti against their oppressors ’ ? 
Thus, in the very opening of Chinese history, we find the 
people believing in one 8npreme Being and that belief in 
him as a patron of virtue was reflected in the purity of 
their lives. 1 

Gradually, [however, Shangti fades away from view. 
Another power became dominant in China. The sun and 
the earth are the principal objects of worship, while the 
spirits of the mountains and the woods are not left 
anhonoured. With the disappearance of an All-seeing 
Ruler, the moral code steadily declines. Outward forms 
take the place of the worship of the heart, and the favour 
of the gods is no longer secured by exemplary lives, but by 
magic, sorcery, and witchcraft. 

It was in these days of degeneracy that Confucius 
appeared, and tried to introduce a reformation. He was 
a scholar, a philosopher, a historian, a writer, an ambitious 
statesman ; but he never claimed to be a saint or a prophet. 
Divine [inspiration was not catalogued amongst his many 
qualifications. His'aim was to recall to the minds of the 
people[the doctrines that had been the pride of their fathers. 
The moral code which] he introduced was certainly high. 
Humility, charity, obedience, reverence, were strongly en- 
forced ; but [even in [the system of Confucius, so highly 
praised^by the hostile critics of Christianity, we miss most 
of the beautiful maxims of the Gospel. Forgiveness of 
offences, or retuming’good for evil, were doctrines unknown 
to Confucius. 

Confucius, however, aimed at being too practical and 
too material. The idea of a supreme, personal ruler was 
left entirely in the shade. About his existence Confucius 
observed the strictest silence. All indications of a future 
life, whether of joy or sorrow, were carefully excluded. 
Man was'to[attend to his present comforts without discus- 
■ sing such unimportant issues. Thus, his code of law, a 

1 Religion and Morality ; La Religion en Chine , Mgr. De Hurlez. Grand, 188!). 

Digitized by ^ooQle 



medley of high principles and senseless traditional formali- 
ties, was left without any authoritative sanction, and, like 
aU such efforts at influencing the lives of a people, it went 
the way of degeneration. The human mind — even that of 
the Chinese — longed for something higher and more 
inspiring. Taoism, so called after Lao-tse, its presumed 
founder, was introduced as a rival system ; and about Taoism 
it is sufficient to say that though its standard of morality 
was high, the doctrines about Tao, the way and the principle 
from which all men are sprung, and to which they must 
all eventually return, was far too subtle for the ordinal 
intellect. If Confucianism was too material, Taoism was 
too metaphysical. It, too, soon degenerated from its early 
purity, and is now but a mixture of idolatry, alchemy, and 
the worship of spirits. Lao-tse himself is now regarded 
by his followers as a god. Later on Buddhism makes its 
appearance on the Chinese religious stage, but not the 
Buddhism of India, which shall be explained immediately, 
but a Buddhism which has its gods and its goddesses, its 
idols, its spirits, its deified mortals, a Buddhism which 
panders to the passions of the people rather than restrains 
them. China is to-day the battle-ground of these three 
great religious systems, or rather of the rival priesthoods, 
for the people are content to profess or deBpise any form, 
according as adversity or good fortune overtakes their 
tmdertakings. This, briefly, is the religions history of 
China ; and that the Chinaman of to-day is more religious, 
more perfect, more progressive than were his fathers in 
the ages when Shangti watched over the destinies of the 
Celestial Empire, and laid down his law for the people, i& 
certainly not evident to anyone but the anthropological 
theorist. The contrary would appear, rather, to be the 
truth . 1 

It is almost an impossibility to give within a short 
space anything like a connected idea of the development of 
religious opinions in India. The Veda , their oldest book, 
professing to contain the word of God, is our only guide in 

1 Kelijion and JRo. alily ; L'Hitioire det Religions, 3rd edition. Paris: 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



determining the early beliefs of the people ; and the Veda 
seems to clearly indicate that Polytheism or Henotheisjn 
Wft$ the religion flourishing in the country at the dawn of 
history. Varuna, Indra, Mitra, Aditi, are all the objects of 
Worship ; bat, as Max Muller has clearly shown, when the 
Ififarx* iuvoked these gods or goddesses, they invoked each 
ip turn as supreme. Each was infinite, each all powerful . 1 
Writers in the Revue de Vliistoire des Religions strongly 
contend that throughout the earliest literary documents 
Monotheism is evidently indicated. Max haulier himself 
has shown that before the Indian races had reached the 
h$gks of the Ganges, away north in the plains of Asia 
their fathers ages before had invoked with tremulous accents 
their god as Dyaus Pater — ‘Heaven Father.* How then 
explain the multitude of gods in after ages? In another 
place, the eminent philologist supplies a reasonable solution. 
He admits that language ip these days had few if any terms 
to express abstract ideas ; that our notions of God were 
inexpressible except by borrowing tbe name of some cognate 
concrete thing. How, then, could God be better referred to 
than pnder the name of His greatest visible work, the sky, 
and how could His attributes be better expressed than by 
the names of the great natural phenomena, the sun, the 
s^ars, the elouds, the dawn ? In q. later age the metaphorical 
character of these was forgotten. The sky was looked upon 
as God, and the other wonderful phenomena, representing 
merely the perfections of the divinity, came to be considered 
in themselves as infinite beings. 

These great gods were aU-powerful and omniscient. 
They scrutinized the most secret thoughts and actions of 
njen — rewarding the good by a life of bliss, punishing the 
Bipfnl in a prison of darkness. The morality of such a 
people was naturally high. Recognizing that the state 
must be what the family is, the lawgivers sought to guard 
the purity of family life as carefully as it could be guarded 
eyen in the most Catholic state. Benevolence, and works 
of mercy were earnestly inculcated, whilst the most severe 

■ *i ■ » i ' 

1 Thi bcipbfjiiient of 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



d inundations are directed against gambling, stealing, 
robbery, and deceit. 

With the lapse of ages, however, a new worship appears 
in India — the worship of Brahma. The Brahmins or priests, 
constituting the highest of the great castes into which the 
Indians were divided, had fall charge of the sacrifice and all 
liturgical rights. They were superior to all others because 
they had sprang from the head of Brahma, whilst the 
warriors, the merchants, and the artizans were sprung only 
from his shoulders, his belly, and his feet. It is difficult 
to determine the nature of Brahma. Sometimes he is 
represented as an intelligent being, sometimes as a blind 
material force — and this latter would seem to be the more 
correct idea. The doctrine of Metempsychosis was pushed to 
an extreme degree. All created things appear only to pass 
away, and all things pass away only to appear under another 
form. Thus every object pursues its endless round of exist- 
ence, unless it be delivered from the never-ceasing revolu- 
tion ; and it was this deliverance which was the goal of all 
Brahminical desires. Deliverance from change was obtained 
only by conjunction with Brahma the immovable, and men 
could arrive at such conjunction only by knowledge and the 
practice of virtue. This religion, far too metaphysical for 
even the subtle Indian mind, was never very popular except 
among the more learned classes, and against it Buddha soon 
openly preached rebellion. 

To meet the attacks of Buddha and his disciples, the 
Brahmins endeavoured to reform and popularize their 
teaching. The grossest anthropomorphism, idolatry worse 
even than the worst days of the Boman Empire, together 
with a species of savage fanaticism, were the dominant 
features of the new creed. It was, then, that the god 
Vishna comes down upon earth and becomes man as the 
hero, Krishna, and stranger still Krishna, Siva, and Brahma 
began to be looked upon and worshipped as a kind of 
Trinity ; but the lives'of the deities were not such as would 
bs likely to’promote morality among their followers. Siva 
is represented as a highwayman and debauchee, whilst the 
story of Krishna’s younger days spent among the shepherd 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



folk would scarcely bear repetition. Rites of worship the 
most cruel, revolting, and obscene were introduced; the 
gods were depicted in the most shameful and disgusting 
attitudes and positions, whilst hideous statues were erected 
representing their friends, their mothers, sisters, and wives, 
whilst the motley array of minor deities, in the most 
fantastic shapes, with their almost countless array of heads, 
and hands, and feet, to represent the full extent of their 
power and attainments, cannot soon be forgotten by the 
visitor to an Indian Brahminical temple. 

So degrading had their worship become that the 
English Government, even at the risk of exciting a fearful 
racial war, wap forced to interfere and forbid some of their 
practices, such as human sacrifice and the voluntary suicide 
of the widows. Surely a change has come over the religions ot 
India since the days when men prayed to the god Varuna. 

Forgive the wrongs committed by our fathers. 

When we ourselves have sinned in mercy pardon ; 

My own misdeeds, do thou, O God, take from me, 

And for another’s sin let me not suffer . 1 

Who will contend that the change is for the better? 

It now remains to briefly sketch the worship that sprung 
up in opposition to Brahminism. Buddha, which merely 
signifies a learned man, was the name given to the monk 
Siddartha or Guatama, a descendant of the royal house of 
Cakia. Bom about the year 557 B.c., he passed his earlier 
days in the mansions of his father ; but when he arrived at 
man’s estate, disgusted with the fleeting pleasures of the 
court, he bade good-bye to his friends and to his former 
mode of life, and betook himself to the desert where he gave 
himself up to the most extreme mortifications. His own 
good sense, however, soon forced him to moderate his early 
excesses. After seven years of prayer and study, he dis- 
covered, as he himself tells, the true method of arriving at 
complete human felicity. This secret he communicated at 
first only to his disciples, but later on he boldly proclaimed 

1 For full account of Religion of India, vide, The Development of Religion , 
Max Miiller ; Abb4 de Broarlie'ts LHistoire dee Religions ; Religion and Morality, 
Fox ; La Religion , eur Origins et ea Definition, G. Van l)er Gheyn. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 


his doctrines to tbe people ajorg the banks of the Ganges,' 
Mid in tbe country of Oade. He brought together uvl 
established rules of government for the many communities 
of Buddhist monks, and to tbeee he committed tbe solemn 
duty of preaching bis doctrines when he himself should La 
no more. He died, according to tbe best accounts, about 
the year 477 B.c : and, if we are to believe the stories of hia 
opponents, the cause of death was a stomach disease brought 
03 by eating a whole dish of pork and a mess of rice. 

From the accounts left us of bis life, it would scorn that 
Buddha himself was a philosopher and philanthropist, as 
well as an ascetic. His religious teaching is of the greatest 
import a ace, especially in modern times when rationalists 
hold it up as the great rival of Christianity, as, in fact, the 
system of which Christianity is but the faint imitation. It 
might be useful to remark, in the beginning, that Buddhism 
as found in the sacred books of India is very different from 
the Buddhism which is spread amongst the people. So 
marked is this that though the missionaries and explorers 
bad visited Tartary, Japan, Chine, India, Ceylon, centuries 
ago, yet it is only about sixty years since scholars discovered 
that Buddhism was the common foundation on which all 
these other rites were built. 

Buddha does not assert or deny the existence of a God. 
He confesses that be cannot put forward any decided 
answer. His position exactly corresponds with that qf the 
modem agnostic or positivist, If there be a God, he main* • 
tains, it is not necessary to worship him, to pray to him, to 
look to him for guidance in doubts and difficulties. But, 
though there may exist no personal, supreme ruler, there 
is a fatal, necessary law, a law from which no creature, not 
even Buddha himself, can hope to escape ; a law by which 
happiness is attaohed to the practice of good works, misery 
is unerringly attendant upon bad. Metempsychosis is pot 
forward as the means of punishment and reward. Existence 
implies continual change, and as the Brahmins sighed fur 
deliverance, so too did Buddha, but Buddha places the 
deliverance, not in the eon junction with Brahma, the 
unchangeable, but in the state which he calls the Nirvana. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



'About the nature of the Nirvana scholars are divided. The 
weight of authority, however, seems to assert that it was 
not a place of rest and calm, but a state of complete auni- 
hilatioD. This would certainly be the logical outcome of 
Buddha’s doctrine about the mutability of things ; and that 
be himself accepted the conclusion, may he gathered front 
the words which he addressed to his disciples on the night 
before his death. ‘ My brethren,’ he said, ‘ remember that the 
principle of continual change involves that of destruction .’ 1 

In examining bis moral code, it is necessary to hear in 
mind that Buddhism is essentially a monastic religion, so 
that, unlike Christianity, the monks form the principal part 
of the church, in fact they seem to entirely constitute it. 
They are uot bound by any vows, but they are commanded 
to lead celibate lives, to not accept or retain in their 
possession even a single coin, to live entirely upon the alms 
of the people. How strictly this latter rule was observed in 
the beginning, may he gathered from the faot that in one of 
tbs early great Buddhist councils it was long and warmly 
debated whether the monks were obliged to eat the meat SS 
it was given to them iu alms, or whether they might not 
add a little salt to give it a savoury taste. They are to fast 
from mid-day till sun-rise the next morning, and when uot 
engaged in begging among the people, they are to constantly 
madit&te on the nothingness of all earthly things Self 
denial was the method enjoined that a follower might 
become an ‘ arhat ’ or perfect man. Frequent meditations, 
confessions of sins, spiritual direction were earnestly recom- 
mended . 2 

In addition to the monks there was another class, the 
U peaks* or simple faithful* Besides being commanded 
generally to deny themselves, they were forbidden to steal, 

lie, to commit adultery, to indulge in intoxicating liquor, 
to kill any liviog being. This, however, is only the negative 
view of Buddha’s system; there is also a positive side 
embracing charity, kindness, benevolence towards all. In 
the Christian system, where God is considered as a Father 

1 Dt Brogiit, l' II iaiuwe 4e$ JUlijio t$. 

* Um. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



and all men as His children, these feelings are easily under- 
stood, but with a system so egoistical as Buddhism, where a 
man’s only thought is how to escape suffering, they can only 
be the result of philosophic thought, and were never really 
grasped by the followers of Buddha. Even Oldenburg, 
himself a rationalist, is forced to admit that in this 
respect Buddhism is but the dimly outlined shadow of 

Buddhism, however, as a popular religion, was something 
very different. Its principal features were Polytheism, 
magic, and idol worship. Not alone were the Brahminical 
gods, already described, retained, but the Buddhas past and 
future, of whom the chief was Guatama, were deemed 
worthy of the highest form of divine worship. Their statues 
were placed in all the temples. So much attention came to 
be paid to magic that large books have been written about 
this time upon the subject ; in fact, India has long been 
noted as the land of sorcerers. As the religion spread into 
other countries and amongst other races, it soon lost its 
characteristic traits; it seems to have followed the usual 
downward course, if there could *have been any descent from 
such a level. Polytheism degenerated into anthropomorphism 
and anthropomorphism into fetich worship. Buddhism, 
instead of elevating the people among whom it flourished, 
was calculated to retard their progress. The idle, aimless, 
good-for-nothing lives recommended to the early monks, the 
doctrine of complete annihilation, the absence of any 
inspiring motive which might urge them to make an effort, 
were amply sufficient to produce that lethargy and torpor 
which is so evident in their literature as well as in their social 
institutions. Polyandria, polygamy, and divorce flourish in 
the countries over which it has sway. No wonder, then, 
that even Kuenen and Reveille have scouted the idea of 
comparing Buddhism with Christianity. 

It is not necessary, here, to review in detail the history of 
the development of religions amongst the Greeks and 
Romans. Even the anthropologists themselves would hardly 
dare to cite these nations in proof of their theory of progress. 
Few would be deceived by such assertions, and hence it is 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



that they prefer to pursue their researches in lands com- 
paratively unknown. 

Now, independently of the 'Biblical narrative, we have 
endeavoured to prove, according to their own principles of 
demonstration, that, though there has been constant change, 
there has been nothing indicative of real popular progress. 
Indeed, rather the contrary is evident. Nations and peoples 
have gradually lost the idea of one Supreme Buler, which 
their fathers possessed; while their standards of morality have 
been constantly on the wane. Egypt, China, India, Greece, 
and Borne may be cited in proof of these statements. 

If, then, we find that everywhere men have fallen from 
the level attained at the earliest periods of which we have 
any historical records ; if the notions of a Supreme Being 
who established the law, and insisted on its being fulfilled, 
was gradually disappearing; if the ideas of the ordinary 
natural virtues have become corrupted in the lapse of 
ages, is it not reasonable to say that human ingenuity did 
not invent what human abilities could not retain? No 
doubt Catholics freely grant that man by his own unaided 
efforts could obtain a moderately perfect notion of God and 
of His moral law, but when we find that these notions were 
accepted in the beginning by whole nations and peoples, that 
the ablest intellects of every age have been devoted to the 
solution of the religious problem, and that, despite all this, 
the general tendency, according to their own standard, was 
ever downward, is it not difficult to assert that these same 
natural powers can account for the primeval universality of 

Again, might not one reasonably ask some explanation 
of the fact that when the nations of the world, some of them 
highly civilized and highly cultured, were gradually sinking 
deeper and deeper into the mire of anthropomorphism, 
idolatry, and fetichisin, one rude, uncultured, shepherd race, 
dwelling in a secluded corner of the earth, brought into 
contact in their wanderings and exiles with all the flourish- 
ing empires of antiquity, should have jealously guarded the 
Monotheism and moral code of the earliest days, and were 
as prepared to fight for it and to die for it in the days of 

Digitized by 



Herod Agrippa as they were under the leadership of Moses 
or Solomon. No doubt we may be told that the Religious 
Books of the Jews are but the forgeries and fabrications of 
a later age, but waiving that question for the present, is 
it not an historical fact that the Jews were professing 
Monotheism in the very earliest periods, and that they clung 
to that Monotheism throughout the centuries when every 
other people — even those among whom they lived as exiles 
— were pinaging into the moat appaliiug excesses? How 
are the progressionists to explain this phenomenon? 

Again, it is a strange fact that everywhere throughout 
the world, in India, Egypt, China, Babylonia, Irani a, amongst 
the wild wood-rangers of Australia, the tribesmen of Africa, 
the Bed Indians of North America, we find the same doc- 
trines — some of them strange, indeed — commonly accepted 
by the people. Everywhere, as has been shown, there 
existed the belief in the one Supreme Kuler, wb.o, if He did 
not create the earth, at least, organised it, and gave it its 
present form* He laid down the laws for His people which, 
if they observed, they received reward, bat if otherwise 
condign punishment awaited them. The Book of Death 
amongst the Egyptians, the monuments of Chaldea and 
Babylonia, the most ancient poetry of Greece and Borne, 
all alike bear witness to the judgment that is to follow 
after the passage from this world. Everywhere, top, this 
great Gcd is worshipped by His children, and worshipped, 
strange to relate, in the very same way — by sacrifice. Some- 
times it is the fruit of the earth that is offered up, some- 
times the juice of the vine is poured out upon the ground 
to signify His universal dominion, whilst ip the generality 
cf cases He is honoured and propitiated by the slaughter of 
animals, and in not a few cases human beings were the 
victims. Stranger still the very tame ljtes, at least io 
essentials, are easily recognisable amongst peoples the 
me st widely separated. All men appear to have believed in 
a wicked spirit who opposes himself to the good principle 
and is supported in his opposition by a myriad of subordi- 
nate agents. Bis struggle with the powers of heaven, and 
his final overthrow may be found in tne literatures of India 

Digitized by ^ooQle 


29 , 

and Greece. Everywhere, too, the id^a of a sfcate in which 
their forefathers were once completely happy, and which 
they lost through their own fault, is clearly visible. Some of 
the early Indian Sacred Books assert that man fell because 
he sinned by eating a forbidden fruit ; nor is the serpent's 
part in this strange, sad drama forgotten. The tradition 
of a flood or of some other great catastrophe by which man- 
kind wa^ destroyed on account of its wickedness is found in 
nearly all the ancient literatures, besides being prevalent 
amongst the tribesmen of Australia, Africa and America . 1 
Away in the great nations of the East there is clearly 
descemible a belief and a hope in a saviour, who is to come 
and redeem men from their prestnt fallen state; but it is 
only at a comparatively later period, not earlier than five or 
six centuries before Christ, that this belief makes its appear- 
ance in the Sacred Books. Stranger still, almost at the 
same period, something closely resembling the Catholic 
doctrine of the Trinity may be met with, at least in the 
literature of India . 8 

How are the evolutionists to explain the presence of such 
strange doctrines, not in one land alone or amongst one race 
of people, but in every country and nation of the world, 
and that, too, at the very earliest times of which we have 
any historical records? Tbe tradition prevalent amongst 
all peoples that God has spoken directly to His creatures, 
and communicated to them many truths which they were 
to jealously guard, would supply an intelligible solution. 
Waitz narrates how the wildest Australian bushmen tell 
how formerly heaven was nearer men than it is now, that tbe 
highest God, the Creator Himself, formerly gave lessons of 
Wisdom to human beings but that afterwards He withdrew 
from them and now dwells far away in heaven, whilst the 
Sacred Book, Big Veda , bears witness to the existence of a 
similar belief among the Hindoos of India . 8 Do not these 
beliefs resemble very closely the narrative contained in the 
Sacred Books of the Jews ? They would certainly serve to 

1 It is strange that amongst the Negro races there have been found as yet 
bo traditions of a Deluge 

3 The Abb$ de Broglie's L' Histoire des Religions. 

8 The Making of Religion, Lang ; L' II is to ire du Religions . 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



explain a phenomenon with which the anthropologists have 
not yet seriously grappled. 

Lastly, how are they to explain the rise, spread, and 
development of Christianity? Christ was a philosopher, 
they say, of giant intellect. He scrutinised the doctrines of 
the great masters who had gone before, carefully selecting 
what was consonant with human reason, and which tended 
to elevate mankind, and rejecting whatever appeared contra- 
dictory and degrading. It was thus, by borrowing from 
Judaism, Brahminism, Buddhism, that he was enabled 
to build up the system which has been the pride of the 
philosopher as well as of the uneducated for the last nineteen 
hundred years. Search Christianity, ay. Catholicity if you 
will, and you can never point to a single doctrine or practice 
that may not be found in other creeds. These are the works 
of men, you say ; why should you claim a different author- 
ship for your Christianity ? Thus argues the anthropologist. 

It is undoubtedly true that Christianity resembles pagan 
religions, even in their minor details. Thus in the Sacred 
Books of India we find mention of a saviour : ‘ How-tscih, 
born of a pure virgin who had trodden in the footsteps of 
God, and whose delivery was without pain.’ 1 After birth he 
was exposed in a narrow place, where the oxen and sheep 
protected him. Again, Guatama, or Buddha, according to 
the legendary accounts, was bom of a virgin princess, was 
brought shortly afterwards to the temple, and while there 
one of the old priests, on seeing him, foretold the glorious 
career that lay before him. He lived in the bosom of his 
family till he had reached the twenty-ninth year of his age. 
Then he fled to the desert with a few disciples, and in the 
desert gave himBelf up to the most rigorous fasts for a 
number of days, at the end of which Mara, the enemy of 
mankind, appeared, to tempt him to withdraw from his 
designs for human salvation ; and, though his followers fled 
in terror, he put the wicked one to flight. In his public 
career of preaching miracle after miracle — some of them 
strange, indeed — were wrought by him. The touching 
interviews with Magdalen and the Samaritan woman find 

* American Quarterly Review. 

Digitized by ^ooQle 



something of a parallel in Buddha’s life. It is recorded that 
he ascended into heaven in a chariot drawn by a million 
gods, and descended each day to promote his work on earth. 
Again, Buddha forbade adultery, robbery, lying, deceit, 
intemperance, murder. Amongst his monks he encouraged 
chastity, poverty, and obedience, whilst he preached charity, 
benevolence, kindness, towards all. Are not these the 
beautiful maxims of the Gospel ? l 

In India, too, we find flourishing such practices as 
confession of sins, spiritual direction, frequent meditation 
on the vanities of earthly thiugs. The ritual of the Mass, 
as it exists to-day in the Eastern Church, may be found 
included in the Chinese liturgy, the words of consecration 
having been replaced by some magic spells. The Catholic 
doctrine about receiving the Body of the Lord under the 
appearance of bread was evidently flourishing away in the 
depths of Mexico before the Spanish missionaries had visited 
the country. Beads and incense, and torches and priestly 
vestments, are to be met with in many of the Eastern 
religions. Stranger still, in the very heart of Central Asia, 
a land little visited by explorers, the missionaries suddenly 
came upon a scene which filled them with awe and wonder. 
They found a race of people with a pope, a college of 
cardinals, bishops, priests, abbots, deacons, believing in the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation, paying reverence to the 
Holy Virgin, frequently confessing their sins, fasting at 
stated periods, praying for the souls in purgatory. These are 
but examples of the striking resemblances which one may 
be prepared to meet in the study of religions. How are 
they to affect our opinions about the origin of Christianity? 

Let us suppose that Christ was a mere philosopher who 
strove to construct a religious system on the model supplied 
by previous reformers. The question would still remain, 
how was it possible that a poor countryman in Judea could 
have studied the works of Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, 
not to mention a thousand other religious documents — 

1 For full account of Buddha's teaching, vide Dr. Aiken's excellent work, 
TK 4 Uhamnaif Gottoma the Buddha, and the Gotpel of Jaut Chriet . Bos ten : 
Karlier <k Co., 1900. 

Digitized by ^ ooqLc 



works the very existence of which was not even dreamt of 
within the boundaries of the Koman Empire for centuries 
afterwards — how could He have drawn together, from such 
a confused Mid often contradictory medley, the beautiful 
and harmonious system which even the adversaries admit 
Christianity to be; and, above all, how could He have 
succeeded in spreading His doctrines throughout so many 
nations and peoples, with different manners and customs, 
and languages and ideals, and spread it without allowing it 
to be changed to suit the tastes of these various races? 
Buddha doubtlessly built up an imposing religioas system ; 
but Buddha failed to win support, except by permitting his 
followers to retain all their old beliefs, and change the new 
ones to suit their wishes. Catholics do not deny to the 
individual the power of evolving a religion comprising many 
of the natural truths ; but they do assert that lje can never 
succeed in inducing a great body of the people to accept his 
teaching, and in proof of this assertion they may confidently 
appeal to the testimony of history. The religion of Christ, 
on the contrary, swept before it all traces of the older 
worship ; it spread throughout the world in a comparatively 
short space of time, despite the opposition of emperors and 
priests and philosophers ; its followers were not divided into 
a thousand warring sects, as were the adherents of Buddha 
or Confucius ; but they were united into one solid body, all 
believing the same doctrines, all obeying the same sovereign 
power. It was not without life or energy, as are the 
Eastern religions of to-day, but a great, living reality in the 
world, always advancing — at least always struggling — and 
to-day it shows as little signs of breaking up as it did in the 
days of Pepin or Constantine the Great. What all philo- 
sophers before Him had failed to do, what was opposed to 
the whole history of mankind from the beginning, Christ 
succeeded in doing. Surely, then, the anthropologists must 
admit that it devolves upon them to put forward some 
explanation of this remarkable phenomenon. 

The explanation given is well worthy of their school. 
All the doctrines of Christianity, they say, were taught 
before in one or other of the earlier creeds. Th$se were 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 


confessedly the work of man ; such, therefore, must also be 
the religion of Christ. Never was a more feeble argument 
advanced in defence of any theory. Even on their own 
principles that like effects presuppose like causes does it not 
clearly follow that Christianity cannot be the work of man, 
because they themselves admit that it combines in one all 
that is best in the previous worships without containing 
any of their revolting features. It is, therefore, im- 
mensely superior to all others, and must be referred to a 
superior cause. Again, the very essence of the difficulty 
which they have got to explain is — how this collection was 
made? Does it follow that because Zoroaster, Confucius and 
Buddha, Socrates and Plato, were each able to construct a 
system containing a few of the great truths of Christianity 
mingled or rather overlaid with masses of superstition and 
error that the Christ who preached a religion combining all 
the scattered glimpses of truth without at the same time any * 
of the blunders which had disfigured previous systems — that 
he must be merely a man as these masters were ? Such an 
argument as this would hardly bear the test of logic. 

But, cannot the resemblance between Christianity and 
Pagan worship be explained on any other hypothesis except 
that Christ was a mere plagiarist ? Surely the anthropolo- 
gists might deign to listen to the opinions of those who 
differ with them. In the first place many of the apparent 
difficulties vanish if we but bear in mind that some of these 
religions were developed long after the days of Christ and 
are only reproductions of Catholic worship. Thus, it can 
be proved that the poj>e, cardinals, bishops, priests, fasts, 
prayers, confessions, purgatory, of the people of Thibet, are 
but the importations of the Nestorian Christians of the 
fifth or sixth century. They had intercourse with India 
and China, and this, too, will serve to explain the presence 
of the Catholic ritual of the Mass in the liturgy of the 
Chinese. Might not their narratives of the life and actions 
of the Bedeemer have given rise to the numberless legends 
which have been since woven round the name of Buddha ? 1 

1 See Professor Aiken's work as quoted above. He proves that many of 
these legends were woven round the name of Buddha long after the Preaching 
of Christ. 

VOL. X. C 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



Again, many of the apparent resemblances are purely 
accidental and do not demand any explanation. Were we 
to devote our attention to mere coincidences there is hardly 
anythjng we might not be able to demonstrate. Thus, 
M. Jacolliat has undertaken to prove from the likeness 
between the word Krishna — the_name of an Indian god — 
and Christ that Christianity is the product of Parseeism, 
though Krishna is a Sanskrit word meaning black, and 
Christ is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Messiah, 
which signifies anointed. A French writer in reply to 
M. Dupuis, who rates very highly this method of argument, 
undertook to prove in the same way that Napoleon never 
oxisted because Napoleon is only a legendary hero identical 
with Apollo. This he proved not only from the apparent 
resemblance between the names but also by citing several 
of the historical facts recorded in the life of the dethroned 
emperor which almost exactly correspond with the legendary 
tales told of Apollo . 1 It was a fair reply to such a method 
of demonstration but like everything else it could be 
carried too far. It does not serve to completely explain the 

With regard to the external worship of Christianity, 
its liturgy, its rites and ceremonies and processions and 
priestly vestments, why should it be thought strange 
if these once flourished in pagan lands? Why could 
not Christ adopt in His new religion those outward 
forms that are so well suited to express the re- 
ligious emotions of the heart? Many Egyptian scholars, 
for example, are inclined to believe that most of 
the Mosaic ceremonial had been flourishing for centuries 
in Egypt before the law was given on Mount Sinai. 
Circumcision certainly did — and, yet, who would dare to 
assert from this fact alone that Judaism was not divine? 
Judging a priori would we not say that if Christ were God, 
and, hence necessarily a prudent reformer, He would permit 
His followers to retain the external forms to which they had 
been accustomed from their childhood — sanctifying only 

x L'Butoire dc% Religion* k 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



and giving to God what had been devoted for ages to the 
worship of idols ? 

Again, it is not Catholic teaching that Christ came to 
destroy the natural law, but rather to develop and perfect 
it. Why, then, should the presence in His system of the 
mere natural truths be used as an argument against the 
divinity of His religion ? Nor are we disposed to deny that 
the followers of Christ had recourse to the philosophical 
ideas and forms of language then flourishing in order the 
better to clothe and explain the great dogmas of Christian 
faith. Where is the preacher or orator to-day who has his 
mind set upon success and docs not first carefully study 
the ideals, the modes of thought, the peculiar linguistic 
forms to which his audience are accustomed, and prepare 
himself accordingly to win their attention. Would that be 
considered plagiarism in him ? if not, why should it be in 
the case of Christ and the early preachers of His Gospel ? 

Those who maintain a primitive revelation have no 
reason to fear these resemblances between Christianity 
and pagan creeds ; they ought, rather, to seek for them. 
They assert that all races and peoples are descended from 
a common forefather, to whom God, speaking directly, 
communicated all # the great truths afterwards embodied in 
Christianity. In the course of ages men became less and 
less mindful of their Creator ; this body of truths was 
gradually becoming corrupted, and it was only when Christ 
appeared on earth that the knowledge of them was again 
universal. This, certainly, appears to be the view followed 
by St. Augustine when he says : — 

What is now called the Christian religion has existed amongst 
the ancients, and was not absent from the beginning of the human 
race until Christ came in the flesh, from which time the true 
religion began to be called Christian. 

There are, however, serious difficulties to be overcome by 
those who would assert that Christianity in its entirety as 
embracing all its great dogmas was thus revealed in the be- 
ginning. Were one to assert that a revelation was made in 
the beginning, not, indeed, a revelation of the whole Christian 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



dogmas, but rather of the seeds of the doctrines afterwards 
embodied in the teaching of Christ and His followers, 
he would have escaped these apparent difficulties. .In 
the lapse of ages, however, these truths were differently 
developed by different peoples, according to their peculiar 
bent of mind. No doubt, even in these developments, one 
might be prepared to meet some striking resemblances, 
since all forms of worship spring from the deep religious 
feeling common to human nature, and have as their object 
the expression of man’s sentiments towards his Supreme 
Ruler. Palaces, for example, however much they may 
differ, have many striking points of agreements, because 
they are all built for the same purpose. Why should not 
the same be true in religion ? This view serves at once to 
guard the primeval revelation, and escapes the difficulties 
which might be advanced against it if put forward in its 
extreme form. 

J. M‘Caffrby. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

[ 37 ] 



D R. SALMON said in his Introductory Lecture, ‘ I have 
an advantage in addressing an audience all of one way 
of thinking, that I am not bound to measure my words 
through fear of giving offence * (page 15). This is really a 
very questionable* advantage : and it is more than counter- 
balanced by the risk of its begetting a confidence which 
would make the lecturer as indifferent to the measure of his 
facts and doctrines as to that of his words. Unfortunately 
for Dr. Salmon, and for his students also, the * advantage 1 
has had precisely this effect upon him. He had no fear of 
hostile criticism — no fear tljat even one of his statements 
would be questioned by any one of his audience, and, he 
neither measured his words, nor felt his way, but went on 
headlong, caricaturing facts and doctrines and arguments in 
Buch a way as to suggest grave doubts as to his own sincerity. 
He informed his students that our great argument for 
Infallibility was its necessity, though he could have learned 
from any of our dogmatic theologians that this was not our 
great argument ; and having made this statement, he proceeds 
to construct for us a profession of faith, sufficiently meagre 
to dispense with the necessity of an infallible guide ; and the 
* audience all of one way of thinking/ was, of course, 
enlightened, delighted and convinced. 

Dr. Salmon says : 4 For thus holding that the list of 
truths, necessary to be known in order to salvation, is short 
and simple, we have the authority of the Roman Church 
herself* (page 91). And behold the proof : — 

What is it [he asks], that for their souls' health they are bound 
to know ? A popular little manual circulated by thousands, and 
called, ‘ What every Christian must know,' enables us to answer 
this question. It tells ns that every Christian must know the four 
great truths of faith, namely : — * 1. There is one God. 2. In that 
God there are three Persons. 3. Jesus became Man and died for 
us. 4. Qod will reward the good in heaven, and punish the wicked 

Digitized by Le 



in hell.’ This list of necessary truths is not long, but some Roman 
Catholics have contended that it might be shortened, pointing out 
that, since men were undoubtedly saved before Christ’s coming, 
without any explicit faith in the Incarnation or in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, an explicit faith in these doctrines cannot be held to 
be necessary to salvation (page 95). 

In a note Dr. Salmon attributes this view to Gary, on 
the authority of Dr. Littledale, and he then proceeds as 
follows : ‘ Nor does such faith seem to be demanded in a 
certain Papal attempt, to define the minimum of necessary 
knowledge. Pope Innocent IV., in his Commentary on the 
Decretals, lays down that it is enough for the laity to attend 
to good works ; and for the rest to believe implicitly what 
the Church believes ’ (pages 95, 96). Now, when young 
men, not overburthened with knowledge, are listening day 
after day to teaching of this sort, it is no wonder that it 
takes hold of their minds ; they come to believe it ; they 
rest satisfied with it ; they rely on their teacher ; and they 
go out into the world with the conviction that Catholics 
are very illogical and absurd, and very wicked also. They 
have been listening all along to a one-sided story, and 
they never realise that there is another side, which may be 
very different. Dr. Salmon warned his students against 
identifying the statements of particular divines with 1 the 
authorised teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ’ (page 13). 
And yet this is precisely what he has himself been doing, in 
the extracts just given. They are his proof that ‘ we have 
the authority of the Roman Church herself for holding that 
the list of truths, necessary to be known in order to sal- 
vation, is short and simple ’ (page 91). Now, Father Furniss 
is not ‘ the Roman Church herself,’ neither is Father Gury, 
nor Innocent IV. in the work quoted, or rather misquoted. 
Catholic theologians would smile at finding the Regius 
Professor of Divinity quoting — (misquoting) — a penny 
book, written by a hard-worked missionary priest, and 
intended for children, as if it had been a standard 
Catholic theological work, and 1 the authority of the Roman 
Church herself.’ No wonder that the Doctor’s pupils become 
such profound theologians, such formidable controversialists, 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



such a terror to the Church of Borne! The Doctor, then, 
i3 inconsistent. But he is much more than inconsistent ; 
he is grossly unfair to the writers quoted, for neither of 
them held the doctrine attributed to them by Dr. Salmon. 

When a passage is taken out of its context and used in 
a sense different from that of the writer, that writer is as 
much misrepresented as if words had been attributed to him 
which he did not use at all. To falsify a writer’s meaning 
is just as bad as to falsify his words. The view attributed 
to Gury is a good illustration of this. He is represented as 
teaching that our obligatory profession of faith 4 might be 
shortened ’ ; limited to belief in God, and in future rewards 
and punishments ; and Catholics are represented as holding 
the necessity of an infallible guide for so short a creed. 
Now, if Dr. Salmon believes in St. Paul’s teaching, he must 
be satisfied that belief in the two articles mentioned was 
absolutely necessary before the Church was founded at all. 
And does he fancy that an astute Jesuit theologian is so 
simple as to maintain that an infallible church is necessary 
for the teaching of truths, that had been believed for several 
centuries before the Church came into existence. Is he, in 
his anxiety to make out a case against the Catholic Church, 
abandoning the old Protestant theory about the Jesuits? 
He quotes Gury from Dr. Littledale. It would have been 
much better if he had quoted from Gury himself ; for then, 
he would have seen that the passage referred to, had no 
more reference to the doctrine of Infallibility than the 
Aurora Borealis has. What sort of necessity does Gury 
contemplate in the passage referred to ? 

It becomes necessary again to remind Dr. Salmon of the 
distinction made by theologians between the necessity of 
means ( necessita* medii ), and the necessity of precept 
( neceesitas praecepti). In strict theological language a 
thing is said to be a means (medium) of salvation, when it 
contributes something positive towards the securing of 
salvation ; and, it is a necessary means, when this positive 
influence contributed by it, cannot be otherwise supplied. 
A thing, then, that is necessary as a means (necessitate medii) 
of salvation, is so necessary, that in no circumstances can 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



it be dispensed with ; it does foe ns something for the saving 
of our souls, which nothing else (in the present dispensa- 
tion) can do. The necessity, therefore, is strict and 
absolute and indispensable. On the other hand, when a 
thing is said to be necessary, by necessity of precept 
( necessitate praecepti), the necessity arises solely out of the 
precept ; tbe thing commanded or prohibited has, of itself, 
no positive influence on our salvation; it does nothing 
positive for us ; but if we violate the precept we sin, and 
thus put a bar to our salvation. It is clear, then, that the 
necessity of precept can affect only adults in the possession 
of their reason, for such only are capable of fulfilling a 
precept ; and it is clear, also, that circumstances may exempt 
one wholly, or partly, from the obligation of a precept. 
And since we are bound to labour to save our souls, it 
follows that whatever is necessary as a means of salvation 
comes under that obligation, and is, therefore, necessary by 
necessity of precept also. Now, according to Catholic theo- 
logy, faith is necessary as a means of salvation, absolutely 
and indispensably, for all without exception. Habitual 
faith infused in baptism suffices for infants who die before 
they come to the use of reason. But for all adults who 
have come to the use of reason, actual faith, supernatural 
in its principle and in its motive— that is, explicit belief 
in certain divinely revealed truths — is necessary as a means 
of salvation ( necessitate medii ), and from this stem 
necessity, no circumstances whatever, no ignorance how- 
ever invincible, can excuse them. How may truths of 
faith come under this stern necessity of means, is not 
determined ; but all adults in the enjoyment of reason 
are bound by necessity of precept (necessitate praecepti) to 
believe all that God has revealed, and that His Church 
teaches. As already stated, circumstances may, to a large 
extent, affect the obligation of a precept, or may, altogether, 
exempt one from its observance. One, for instance, to 
whom the precept was never made known, cannot be 
expected to observe it, and does not sin by not observing 
it. A street arab who has been neglected by his parents, 
who has been the sport of adverse fortune from his earliest 

Digitized by 



days, cannot be expected to know his faith as well as a 
child, who has been trained carefully by religious parents. 
And a trained theologian — like Dr. Salmon — knows much 
more of revealed truth than an ordinary layman does, 
and is therefore bound to a greater measure of explicit 
faith in those truths that are necessary, by necessity 
of precept ( necessitate praecepti). And the violation of 
the precept of faith, is a much greater sin, in the 
case of one who has a better knowledge of his obligation ; 
for such a person sins against greater light. Thus 
then, while the precept of faith is the same for all, its 
obligation, as regards explicit faith, does not affect indivi- 
duals with equal stringency. All this, Dr. Salmon could 
have read in any of our dogmatic theologians; and he 
should have read it somewhere before he ventured to lecture 
on so important and difficult a subject. But to misrepre- 
sent our theologians without reading them, appears to be 
Dr. Salmon’s forte. Instead of looking, himself, at the text of 
Gury, he takes it from the extra-fallible Littledale, and tells 
his students that we require an infallible guide to a profession 
of faith, that is limited by one of our own standard theo- 
logians to two articles : — the existence of God, and future 
rewards and puuishments. Now again, what sort of necessity 
does Gury contemplate in the passage referred to ? Nothing 
can be clearer than Gury’s own words. The passage occurs 
in his treatise, De Virtutibus , c. 1, art. 2, 8. 1, and the section 
is headed — ‘-On the truths necessary to be known and 
believed by necessity of means ’ (necessitate medii). He is, 
therefore, discussing what truths of faith are absolutely and 
indispensably necessary (necessitate medii) to be explicitly 
believed by all, whether in the Church or outside of it, in 
order that they may be saved. He states as certain that 
the two articles of faith mentioned by Dr. Salmon are 
necessary as a means (necessitate medii) and he gives the 
proof ; and having done so, he says : — * But it is disputed 
whether there are not many other articles also necessary 
to be explicitly believed by this same rigorous necessity of 
means (necessitate medii) for salvation.* He states that 
some theologians hold that the Trinity and Incarnation 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



come under the same rigorous necessity, but, he himself 
thinks the opposite opinion more probable; that is, that 
only faith in God, and in future rewards and punishments, 
is necessary by necessity of means { necessitate medii ) for 

This, then, according to Gury, is the minimam of 
explicit faith to qualify an adult for entering into Heaven ; 
and no circumstances whatever — no amount of invincible 
ignorance — would excuse from the stem necessity of so much 
at least of explicit faith. It holds for all without exception, 
whether in the Church or out of it. It has been necessary 
since revelation began, and a majority of theologians 
regard it as more probable that the Christian revelation 
has not altered this minimum. Thus, then, the opinion 
of Gury contemplates a most exceptional case : — that of one 
who has explicit faith in God, and who believes that He will 
reward those who serve Him ; but who, through no fault of 
his own, is ignorant of all other revealed truths. And all 
that the opinion concedes is, that the. salvation of such a 
person is not impossible. According to Gury, therefore, the 
salvation of one who has explicit faith in God and 
in future rewards and punishments, is, in certain most 
exceptional circumstances, not impossible. Therefore, 
says Dr. Salmon, Gury teaches that explicit faith in God 
and in future rewards and punishments is sufficient for 
all persons, at all times and in all circumstances. This is 
all * that for their souls’ health they are obliged to know * 
(page 95) ; and in this teaching of Gury ‘ we have the 
authority of the Roman Church herself’ (page 91} 
Dr. Salmon's logic is worthy of his cause. In the chapter 
and article of Gury, already quoted, section 2 is headed : 

‘ On the truths necessary to be known and believed by 
necessity of precept ' ( necessitate praecepti) ; and he gives 
in the list of such truths the Apostle’s Creed, the Command- 
ments, the Precepts of the Church, the Lord's Prayer, the 
Sacraments, and he adds such an explanation of them as 
includes our full obligation, both as to faith and morals. 
All this we are bound by the Church to know and 
believe, and for the simple and sufficient reason that our 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



Lord commissioned and commanded her to teach all this ; 
and it iB in teaching all this that the Church’s infallible 
authority comes to be exercised. This is a very different 
version of Gury’s teaching from that given to his students 
by Dr. Salmon ; but it is Gury’s own. 

And bad as Dr. Salmon’s treatment of Gury is, his 
treatment of Pope Innocent IV. is immeasurably worse ; 
for he represents the Pope as teaching that ‘ the laity * 
require no explicit faith at all. After misquoting Gury the 
Doctor adds : — 

Nor does such faith seem to be demanded in a certain 
Papal attempt to define the minimum of necessary knowledge. 
Pope InnocentIV., in his Commentary on the Decretals , lays down 
that it is enough for the laity to attend to good works, and for the 
rest to believe implicitly what the Church believes (pages 95, 96). 

The quotation begins with one of those sinister insinua- 
tions with which Dr. Salmon’s book is literally teeming : 
4 a certain Papal attempt to define.’ Now, when we speak 
of a Pope defining any doctrinal question, we understand 
that he is pronouncing a definite sentence, which Catholics 
are bound to accept as infallible ; and the. expression used 
by Dr. Salmon suggests to his students that ‘ the minimum 
of necessary knowledge. ’ has been definitely fixed for us by 
an infallible decision, that minimum being no explicit faith 
at all, at least for lay Catholics. Now (1), no Catholic believes 
that a Pope, when he writes a book, is acting in his official 
capacity as Head of the Church and teaching infallibly. 
Benedict XIV. has written several very learned and valuable 
works, which are frequently quoted by Catholic theologians, 
but never as infallible utterances. It is so with the work of 
Innocent IV. He was a very learned man ; but no one 
before Dr. Salmon represents him as defining, or attempting 
to define, the questions discussed in his book in the sense 
in which that word * define ’ is used when there is question 
of the exercise of Infallibility. When a Pope writes such a 
work Catholics regard him as a private theologian giving his 
opinion ; and in such cases his opinion is weighed, like that 
of other theologians, on its merits. But (2) Innocent IV. 
did not give the opinion attributed to him by Dr. Salmon , 

Digitized by A^OOQle 



but the exact contradictory of it ; and Dr. Salmon’s mani- 
pulation of the text he professes to be quoting is one of the 
worst specimens of his controversial tactics. He suppresses 
what the Pope says, in order to represent him as saying 
what he did not say. 1 Pope Innocent IV. lays down that it 
is enough for the laity to attend to good works, and for the 
rest to believe implicitly what the Church believes.’ Now, 
if the Pope lays down that, this is enough ; therefore, he 
lays down that no explicit faith is necessary for the laity. 
This is Dr. Salmon’s version. But the opening words of the 
passage he professes to be quoting are as follows : — 

There is a certain measure of faith to which everyone is bound, 
and which is sufficient for the simple, and, perhaps, even for all 
laics ; that is, that each one coming to the faith must believe that 
there is a God, nnd that He rewards all the good. They must also 
believe other articles implicitly ; that is, they must believe that 
whatever the Church teaches is true. 

With his usual dexterity Dr. Salmon omits the passage 
in which the Pope insists on the necessity of explicit faith, 
and substitutes words which have no foundation in the text 
at all. The Pope says that explicit faith in God, and in 
future rewards, is necessary for all, even the most ignorant ; 
but according to Dr. Salmon be lays down that the laity 
require no explicit faith at all. There is very little likeli- 
hood that Dr. Salmon’s students will take the trouble of 
consulting the very rare and obscure book which he pro- 
fessed to quote ; and so, the false impression created by his 
teaching will remain ; and if the students really believe their 
professor, they will go out into the world with the con- 
viction, that their Catholic neighbours are not bound to 
have explicit faith even in the existence of God ! What 
a liberal and enlightened generation of clerics that must 
be, which has had the advantage of Dr. Salmon’s special 

The remainder of Dr. Salmon’s reference to Innocent IV. 
is quite irrelevant. It is^ clearly intended to fasten on 
Catholic priests in the past, the charge of ignorance. Well, 
it is much to be regretted that religious teachers in any 
Church should be wanting in knowledge ; but the Catholic 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



Church has not a monopoly of such teachers. A glance at 
the third chapter of Macaulay’s History of England , or at 
Dean Swift’s Directions to Servants , would show Dr. Salmon 
that he has some domestic difficulties to settle. And indeed, 
judging from his own lectures, those who have had the 
privilege of his own special training, are not likely to 
become prodigies of theological knowledge ; — and certainly 
their time would have been better employed in learning to 
defend whatever revealed truths they still hold, than in 
learning to calumniate us. But even irrelevant as the 
quotation from Innocent IV. is, Dr. Salmon could not resist 
his habit of manipulating it. The cleric described by 
Macaulay, after securing the cook or kitchen-maid as partner 
of his missionary toil, was allowed by his Church to propa- 
gate the Gospel after his own fashion. No inconvenient 
inquisition was set up as to his positive knowledge of the 
truths he was supposed to teach. But the ignorant cleric 
contemplated by Innocent IV. was not let off so easily, as 
Dr. Salmon could have seen from the text before him. By 
dispensation of the Pope, or of a religious superior, such a 
cleric may be allowed to retain his position, only in the 
extreme case when he had neither time for studying nor the 
means of acquiring knowledge ; when he was so poor that 
he should support himself by the labour of his own hands. 
But if he had facilities for acquiring more explicit knowledge 
he was bound to acquire it. And the religious superior, 
before imposing penance on such a cleric for culpable 
ignorance, was directed to ascertain whether the ignorance 
arose from weakness of intellect, or, as many of those 
alleged, from pressure of works of piety and charity. 
And in the case of one who had sufficient talent and the 
means of acquiring more explicit knowledge, Innocent IV. 
would not admit of such an excuse. No doubt the case 
contemplated by the Pope is an extreme one, and the 
standard is certainly low ; but it is very far from being so 
low as Dr. Salmon represents it ; and moreover, it was the 
result of the bad system of lay interference in ecclesiastical 
appointments — a system which the Popes always laboured 
to break down. 

Digitized by 




Amongst the myriad misquotations in Dr. Salmon’s 
book, perhaps the most extraordinary is his reference to 
Father Fumiss. The little book quoted, What every 
Christian must know , is one of a series of ‘ Books for 
Children.’ The Imprimatur of the present learned Arch- 
bishop of Dublin on its first page, is an absolutely certain 
warrant of its orthodoxy ; but, being intended for children, 
and for very young children, too, its style is the plainest and 
simplest imaginable, and its teaching of the most elementary 
character. That this penny book should be looked up to as 
an authority by the theological faculty of Trinity College, is 
an indication of the profound knowledge of theology which 
the faculty imparts ; but, that so plain and simple a little 
book should be misrepresented, must be the result of an 
invincible propensity. This little tract, he says, 

Tells us that every Christian must know the four great truths 
of faith, namely : — 1. There is one God. 2. In that God there are 
three Persons. 3. Jesus became man and died for us. 4. God 
will reward the good in heaven and punish the wicked in hell 
(page 95). 

And on the following page he adds that : — 

Later editions add the doctrine of the Sacraments, namely : — 
Baptism takes away original sin ; Confession takes away actual 
sin ; and the Blessed Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ. 

And he adds : — 

But take this list of necessary truths at the longest, and it 

certainly has the merit of brevity But the main point is, 

that if the list of necessary truths is so short the necessity for an 
infallible guide disappears, the four great truths of faith named 
are held as strongly by Protestants who dispense with the guidance 
of the Church of Borne as by those who follow it (pages 96, 97). 

All that we need believe then is the existence of God, 
the Trinity, the Incarnation, future rewards and punish- 
ments, with Baptism, Confession, and the Blessed Sacra- 
ment, and for this concise creed we require an infallible 
guide. This is Dr. Salmon’s version of the teaching of 
Father Fumiss. But when we consult Father Fumiss 
himself, we find the Doctor playing his old game. The 

Digitized by CjOoq Le 



very first sentence in Father Fumiss* little book is a quota- 
tion from Benedict XIV. as follows : — ‘ We affirm that the 
greatest part of the damned are in hell, because they were 
ignorant of those mysteries of faith which Christians must 
know and believe.’ This does not look like minimising in 
the matter of faith. And the very next sentence, which is 
the first of Father Fumiss’ own text, is as follows : — ‘ Every 
.Christian, by the command of the Church, must know, at 
least : — 1. The four great truths of Faith. 2. The Sacra- 
ments ; at least Baptism, Penance, and the Blessed 
Eucharist. 3. The Prayers, Our Father, Hail Mary, and 
the Creed, or, I believe. 4. The Commandments of God, 
and the Church.’ And then under the heading of Faith, 
Father Furniss says : — ‘ Be very careful to learn these four 
great truths, because no one can go to heaven without 
knowing them,’ and he then gives the four great truths 
named by Dr. Salmon. It is clear, then, from Father Furniss 
himself, that the necessity for the four great truths is the 
necessity of means, whereas, in the previous sentence he 
contemplated the necessity of precept, and gave, under that 
heading, his substance of the Catholic profession of faith, 
which we are bound to take from the Church. 

Father Furniss next gives the Sacraments : — Baptism, 
Penance, and the Blessed Eucharist, with a very short 
question and answer on each. And, strange to say, 
Dr. Salmon misrepresents only one of these answers ; but 
what is lost in number is made up for by the character of 
the misrepresentation. ‘ Confession takes away actual 
sin,* he says, whilst professing to be quoting from Father 
Fumiss. No, Confession does not take away actual sin, and 
Father Furniss does not say that it does. The Sacrament 
of Penance takes away actual sin, and Father Furniss says 
so ; but of that Sacrament Confession is only one part, and 
that not the most essential or important. Such, then, are 
the authorities offered to his students by Dr. Salmon, to 
convince them, that we are required to believe very little, 
and, that for that little we require an infallible guide. For 
teaching of this sort it is no excuse that it is addressed to 
1 an audience all of one way of thinking.’ This circumstance 

Digitized by 




only renders such teaching more reprehensible, for it keeps 
young men from thinking aright on a question involving 
the salvation of their souls. Now, when Dr. Salmon told 
his students that our obligatory profession of faith may, 
according to our own theologians, be cut down to two 
articles, and that we required an infallible guide even for 
these, did he make the slightest attempt to verify his state- 
ment ? Does he fancy that we are fools to risk our souls on 
such a creed ? Does he fancy us ignorant of the fact that 
the articles named were just as necessary before the Church 
was founded as they are now? Did he really believe his 
own statement regarding us ? Either he did not believe 
his own statement about us, or, if he did believe it, then 
his ignorance is not only culpable, but contemptible ; for a 
moment’s glance at the authorities quoted by him would 
have convinced him of his error. There is no use in 
mincing matters with this Begins Professor. His loud 
sounding titles give him no license to misrepresent. While 
teaching respectable young men he takes his authorities at 
second hand from tainted sources ; and, from false premises 
thus acquired he draws false conclusions, and sets them 
before his students as truths admitted by Catholics them- 
selves. Instead of giving them reliable information, he 
crams them with error and with prejudices, and sends them 
on their mission, blind leaders of the blind, with, of course, 
the usual result. If our doctrines be false, surely they can 
be refuted without being misrepresented ; and if they be 
true, Dr. Salmon and his young men have a very vital 
interest in knowing what they really are. * The main point 
is,’ he says, * that, if the list of necessary truths is so short, 
the necessity for an infallible guide disappears.’ The main 
point is just the reverse, for the list of necessary truths is 
not so short, and the necessity for an infallible guide does 
not, therefore, disappear. But Dr. Salmon must be again 
reminded that our argument for the infallible guide is 
grounded, not on its necessity at all, but on God’s express 
revelation of it. It is our duty to take the truth from God, 
not to ask Him the reason why; though the conflicting 
opinions held by the leaders of Dr. Salmon’s Church on 

Digitized by t^OOQle 



the most vital doctrines of Christianty afford a very strong 
presumptive proof of the necessity of an infallible guide 
for a much shorter creed than ours. A day. will come for 
Dr. Salmon when he shall know a good deal more theology 
than he seems to know now; and as it is jast possible 
that sach knowledge may come too late, it may be more 
prudent for him to consider seriously in time whether in 
‘ dispensing with the guidance of the Church of Rome * he 
may not be in reality casting in his lot with the heathen 
and the publican. He says his object is not victory but 
truth, and here is a matter in which truth and victory go 
hand in hand. 

Not content with misrepresenting Father F amiss as to 
the list of necessary truths, Dr. Salmon seeks to bring ridicule 
on him for attempting to determine such a list at all. He 
Bays : ‘ And we may think it strange that a modem writer 
has succeeded in doing what the writers of the New Testa- 
ment tried to do, and are said to have failed in ’ (page 96). 
Here he tells his students that the writers of the New 
Testament tried to draw up a complete list of necessary 
truths, to be, of course, handed down in the New Testa- 
ment; and he insinuates, that we hold they failed in the 
attempt. Now, we deny emphatically, that the writers of 
the New Testament had any such intention, and they 
could not be said to have failed in doing what they never 
attempted to do. The Doctor offers no proof of his state- 
ment, except his confident assertion. 

It was certainly, [he says], the object of the New Testament 
writers to declare the truths necessary to salvation. St. John 
(xx. 31) tells us his object in writing : ‘ These are written that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God ; and that 
believing ye might have life through His name ’ (page 96). 

Now this assertion, and the text offered to prove it, fall 
far short of the Doctor’s case. It is necessary for him to 
show that the object of the New Testament writers was to 
declare in their writings, all the troths necessary to salvation. 
The text of St. John refers to the Incarnation only, and it 
may be presumed that Dr. Salmon believes at least in the 

von. x. D 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



Trinity. As already stated, the. New Testament writings 
were called forth by <nfc*9Mtanc6s. Ib one plaee it was 
necessary to counteract the tendency to J origan ng ; in 
another place, the fake principles of Pagan p bilosepfey bad 
to be checked ; in another piece professing Christians had to 
be censured for their wicked lives* or lor the dissensions that 
were springing up amongst them. To meet such emer- 
gencies was the object of the writers of the New Testament, 
as Dr. Salmon is well aware. To this object their writings 
are mainly directed, and not m all these writings, taken 
together, have we stated the complete body of Christian 
faith. The Apostles, no doubt, declared to their followers 
all the truths necessary to salvation, bat they did not insert 
all these truths in the inspired writings that bare come 
down to us, and Dr. Salmon has not an atom of proof to the 
contrary. And, though he has offered no proof whatever, 
he proceeds, as if his case had been indisputably established, 
to say : — 

Yet we are required to believe that these Apostles and Evan- 
gelists, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
performed their task so badly, that one who should have recourse 
to their pages for guidance is more likely than not to go astray, 
and is likely to find nothing hut perplexity and error. Strange 
indeed that inspired writers should fail in their task. Stranger 
still that writers who claim no miraculous assistance, should be 
able to accomplish it in a half-a-dozen lines (pages 96, 97). 

No such extravagant demand is made on Dr. Salmon, at 
least by Catholics. We leave him in the full enjoyment of 
that liberty to believe, or not to believe, whioh hk own 
'Church gives. But if he make a ridiculous hypothesis, wbat 
follows from it must be bis own affair. Catholics do not 
say that everything in Scripture is obscure and difficult ; 
that no revealed truths are stated plainly in it ; but they do 
say that the whole of God's revelation is not contained in it ; 
whilst the conflicting Creeds professedly deduced fro^a it, 
by men as earnest and ‘ prayerful ’ as Dr. Salmon, afford 
conclusive proof, that there is a great deal in &riptare tfcat 
is obscure, and that a great many have gone astray, and have 
found little but ‘ perplexity and error ’ for making to &pd 

Digitized by GjOoqL e 



their faith from it alone. The following extract is recom- 
Jfte nded to Dr. Salmon’s consideration : — 

Whence come the separation of antagonistic Churches and the 
multiplicity of dissentient sects ? The Romanist reads the Bible, 
and he finds in it the primacy of Peter, the supremacy of the 
Church, and the direction to * do penance ’ for the forgiveness of 
sifts. The Protestant reads it, and he discovers that Rome is the 
1 mystic Babylon,’ the ‘mother of harlots,’ the ‘abomination of 
desolation.’ The Sacerdotalist reads it, and he sees priestly 
supremacy, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Sacramental Salvation. 
The Protestant cannot find in it the faintest trace of Sacerdotalism, 
nor any connexion whatever between offering an actual sacrifice 
and the holy memorial of the Supper of the Lord. The Congre- 
gationalist reads it, and regards Sacerdotalism as an enormous 
apostacy from the meaning and spirit of the Gospel, and comes 
away convinced that every believer is his own all-sufficient priest. 
The Baptist looks into it, and thinks that in Baptism true 
believers must go under the water as adults. Most other 
Christians think that infants should be baptised, and that sprink- 
ling is sufficient. Cromwell and his Roundheads read it, and saw 
everywhere the Lord of Hosts leading on his followers to battle. 
The Quaker reads it, and finds only the Prince of Peace, and 
declares ‘ He that takes the sword shall perish with the sword.’ 
The Anglican Churchman was long persuaded that it taught the 
doctrine of passive obedience— the right- divine of kings to govern 
wrong — the Puritan dwelt on ‘ binding their kings in chains and 
their nobles with links of iron.’ The Calvinist sees the dreadful 
image of wrath flaming over all its pages, and says to his enemies, 

‘ Our God is a consuming fire. ’ The Universalist sees only the 
loving Heavenly Father, and explains the most awful forebodings, 
as Oriental tropes and pictorial rhetoric. The Mormon picks out 
pbraaee to bolster up his polygamy. The Monogamist cries out 
ereft against divorce. The Shaker and his congeners in all ages 
forbid and disparage all wedded unions whatever . 1 

The writer of this extract is a Protestant quite as 
orthodox a# Dr. Salmon, and like the Doctor an enthusi- 
astic upholder of the all-sufficiency of Scripture. When 
Dr. Salmon and his 4 prayerful ’ friends can find so many 
different religions in the same Bible, they are illustrating in 
Idle clearest possible way the result that comes of ‘ diepens- 
ing with the guidance of the Church of Rome/ While 
dneussiog the necessary articles of faith, Dr. Salmon 

1 JTanar, The Bible, it* Meaning and Supremacy . 2nd ed. p. 113. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



introduces tbe distinction between explicit and implicit 
faith, and uses it, with his wonted cleverness, to blindfold! 
his students while professing to enlighten them. 4 No 
one,’ he says truly, ‘is so unreasonable as to expect 
ordinary members of the Church to be acquainted with 
all the decisions of Popes and Councils ’ (page 91) ; and 
he goes on to enumerate some decisions that are difficult 
and obscure ; and he states that, though it would be 
unreasonable to expect Catholics to know them, 4 they are 
nevertheless obliged to believe them.’ And again he adds : 

‘ Of these and such like propositions which an unlearned 
Catholic is bound to believe he is not in the least expected 
to know even the meaning . . . He must believe that the 
Church teaches true doctrines but he need not know what 
these doctrines are * (page 92). If Dr. Salmon, before making 
the above statements, had explained to his students, the 
distinction between explicit and implicit faith, and applied 
it, his remarks would have lost their sting; but he allowed 
his statement to produce a false impression on his students, 
and then, he introduced the distinction in order to produce 
another impression even more false and detrimental. He 
told them that ordinary Catholics were bound to believe 
what they could not be expected to know, and, without a 
word of explanation, he quotes Cardinal Newman as an 
authority for this statement. 

Dr. Newman, [he says], has been so good as to furnish me 
with an example. 4 What sense,’ he asks, 4 can a child or a peasant, 
nay, or any ordinary Catholic, put upoh the Tridentine Canons ? . . . 
Yet the doctrinal enunciations,* he adds, 4 are defide* Peasants are 
hound to believe them as well as controversialists, and to believe 
them as truly as they believe our Lord to be God (page 91). 

It must have been a source of great satisfaction to 
Dr. Salmon’s theologians, to find us convicted of such 
irreligious extravagance, and that too on the authority of 
Cardinal Newman. But their professor did not tell them 
that the quotation was taken from an objection which 
Newman proposed to himself ; and still less did he think of 
telling them that Newman had answered the objection. It 
is difficult to suppress one's feeling in dealing with such 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



dishonest controversy as this. The Fifth chapter of the 
Grammar of Assent is the only one that is strictly speaking 
theological ; and in its Third Section, Newman undertakes 
to deal with * a familiar charge against the Catholic Church 
in^the mouths of her opponents, that she imposes on her 
children, as matters of faith, .... a great number of 
doctrines, which none but professed theologians can under- 
stand.* 1 The principle of the objection was urged long 
since by Jeremy Taylor, but Cardinal Newman expands 
it, and urges it with his wonted candour and ability. 
That Dr. Salmon should have borrowed his objection from 
Newman, is quite intelligible ; for Newman was sure to put 
it with more precision, and with greater force than the 
Doctor himself could command ; but that he should have 
led his students to believe that he was quoting Newman’s 
teaching instead of Newman’s objection; that he should 
have altogether suppressed Newman’s answer ; all this is, 
perhaps, one of the most glaring and discreditable specimens 
of even Dr. Salmon's controversial tactics. The Doctor 
could not have acted in good faith in thus misrepresenting 
Newman, for Newman distinctly states that he is putting 
an objection, and he states with equal distinctness that he 
answers the objection. In the very first sentence of the 
paragraph from which Dr. Salmon quotes, Newman says : 
4 1 will suppose the objection urged thus.* 1 The last sentence 
but one of the same paragraph is the one quoted by 
Dr. Salmon, and to it Newman adds : 4 How then are the 
Catholic Credenda easy, and within reach of all?’ And in 
the opening sentence of the very next paragraph Newman 
says: 4 1 begin my answer to this objection by recur- 
ring to what has been already said/ eta (page 142). 
Dr. Salmon, therefore, could not have mistaken the matter. 
He must have seen that Newman was putting an objection, 
and had given an answer (for Newman says so clearly and 
nnmistakably). And yet, he puts before his students the 
words of the objection as Newman’s teaching, which could 
only be got from the answer, to which he makes no reference 

* Grammar of Atunt, p. 138. 

• Ibid., p. 141. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



whatever. Conduct of this sort needs no comment. No one 
has more reason to complain of the Doctor than his own 
students. He is indeed treating them badly. It is Worth 
while to give Newman’s answer at some length, for besides 
vindicating the Cardinal, it completely disposes of Dr. 
Salmon’s second-hand sophistry. Dr. Newmm makes some 
preliminary remarks on the relations between theological 
truths and the devotions that are grounded on them. Hi 
exphins how the intellect acts on the deposit of faith, 
examining it, and systematising it into the science of 
Theology. He shows how the condemnation of false doc- 
trines, as well as the definitions of true doctrines, enter 
among the Catholic Crederda , and he says : — 

But then the question recurs, why should the refutation of 
heresy be our objects of faith ? if no mind, theological or not, can 
believe what it cannot understand, in what sense can the Canons 
of Councils and other ecclesiastical determinations, be included in 
those Credenda , which the Churoh presents to every Catholic, and 
to which every Catholic gives his firm interior assent ? 

This is a re-statement of the objection, and the answer 
is as follows : — 

In solving this difficulty I wish it first observed, that if it is the 
duty of the Church to act as the pillar and ground of the truth, 
she is manifestly obliged from time to time ana to the end of time, 
to denounce opinions incompatible with that truth, whenever able 
and subtle minds within her communion venture to publish such 
opinions. Suppose certain bishops and priests at this day began 
k> teach that Islam ism or Buddhism was a direct and immediate 
revelation from God, she would be bound to use the authority 
which God has given her to declare that such a proposition wm 
not stand with Christianity, and that those who hold it are none 
of hers ; and she would be bound to impose such a declaration on 
that very knot of persons, who had committed themselves to thB 
novel proposition, in order that, if they would not recant, they 
might be separated from her communion as they were separate 
from her faith. In such a case, then, her masses of population 
would either not hear of the controversy , or they would at once 
take pail with her, and without effort take any test, which secured 
the exclusion of the innovators ; and she, on the other hand, would 
feel that what is a rule for some Catholics must be a rule for all. 
Who is to draw the line, who is to acknowledge it, and who is not 7 

It is plain there cannot be two rules of faith in the same 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



cmxmuBrioa ; or, rather, as the ease really would be, an endless 
variety of rules ooasi&g into force according to the multiplication 
of heretical theories, and to the degrees of knowledge, and of 
sentiment in individual Catholics. There is but one rule of faith 
far all, and, it would be a greater difficulty, to allow of on 
uo&ortam rule of faith than (if that wai tho alternative as it is 
not) to impose upon uneducated minds a profession whioh they 
cannot understand. But it is not the necessary result of unity of 
profession, nor is ft the fact that, the Church imposes dogmatic 
statements on the interior assent of those who cannot apprehend 
them. The difficulty is removed by the dogma of the Church’s 
Infallibility, and of the consequent duty of implicit faith in her 
word. The 1 Qne r Holy, Cathoke, and Apostolic Church, 1 is an 
article of the Creed, and an article which, inclusive of her Infalli- 
bility, all men, high and low, can easily master and accept with a 
real operative assent. It stands in the place of all abstruse 
propositions in a Catholic mind ; for to believe in her word is 
¥01010117 to believe m them all. Even what he cannot under- 
stand, at least, he can believe to be true ; and he believes it to be 
tame because he believes in the Church. The rationale for 
unlearned devotion is as follows : — It stands to reason that all of 
tfe, learned and unlearned, are bound to believe the whole revealed 
doctrine, in all its parts, and in all that it implies, according as 
portion after portion is brought home to our conscience os belonging 
to it ; and it also stands to reason that a doctrine so deep and so 
various as the revealed deposition of faith, cannot be brought 
home to us and made our own all at once. No mind, however 
latge, however penetrating, ean directly, and fully by one act, 
understand any one truth however simple. What can be more 
intelligible than that ‘ Alexander conquered Asia,’ or that 
1 Veracity is a duty/ but what a multitude of propositions is 
included tinder either of these theses I Still if we profess either 
we profess all that it includes. Thus as regards the Catholio 
(hoed, if we really bslieve that our Lord is God, we believe all 
that is meant by such a belief ; or else we are not in earnest when 
we profess to believe the proposition. In the act of believing it 
at all, we forthwith commit ourselves by anticipation to believe 
troths which at present we do not believe, because they have never 
come before us. We limit, henceforth, the range of our private 
judgment in prospect by the conditions, whatever they are, of 
chat dogma. Thus the Arians said that they believed in our 
Lord’s divinity, but when they were pressed to confess His 
eternity, they denied it ; thereby showing, in fact, that they never 
bad bslieved in His divinity at all. In other words, a man who 
really believes in oar Lord’s proper divinity, believes implicit* fa 
His eternity. And so in like manner of the whole depositum of 
faith or the revealed word ; if we believe in the revelation we 
bslieve in what is revealed, in all that is revealed, however it may 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



be brought home to us, by reasoning or in any other way. He 
who believes that Christ is the truth, and that the Evangelists 
are truthful, believes all that He has said through them, although 
he has only read St. Matthew and has not read St. John. He 
who believes in the depositum of revelation, believes in all the 
doctrines of the depositum ; and since he cannot know them all at 
once, he knows some doctrines and does not know others ; he 
may know only the Creed ; nay, perhaps, only the chief portions 
of the Creed ; but whether he knows little or much, he has the 
intention of believing all that there is to believe, whenever, and as 
soon as it is brought home to him, if he believes in revelation at 
all. All that he knows now as revealed, and all that he shall 
know, and all that there is to know, he embraces it all in his 
intention by one act of faith ; otherwise, it is but an accident that 
he believes this or that, not because it is a revelation. This 
virtual, interpretative, or prospective belief, is called to believe 
implicite , and it follows from this, that, granting that the canons 
of councils and other ecclesiastical documents and confessions, 
to which I have referred, are really involved in the depositum 
or revealed word, every Catholic in accepting the deposi- 
tum, does implicite accept these dogmatic decisions. I say 
1 granting these various propositions are virtually contained 
in the revealed word,' for, this is the only question left, 
and that it is to be answered in the affirmative, is clear at once to 
the Catholic, from the fact that the Church declares them to 
belong to it. To her is committed the care and the interpretation 
of the revelation. The word of the Church is the word of revela- 
tion. That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the 
fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion ; and 1 1 believe what 
the Church proposes to be believed’ is an act of real assent, 
including all particular assents, notional and real ; and while it is 
possible for unlearned as well as learned, it is imperative on 
learned as well as unlearned. And thus it is that by believing the 
word of the Church implicite — that is, by believing all that that 
word does or shall declare itself to contain — every Catholic, 
according to his intellectual capacity, supplements the shortcom- 
ings of his knowledge, without blunting his real assent to what is 
elementary, and takes upon himself, from the first, the whole 
truth of revelation, progressing from one apprehension of it to 
another, according to his intellectual opportunities. 1 

This is Newman’s answer to the * familiar charge against 
the Catholic Church,’ which Dr. Salmon told his students 
was Newman’s own teaching. If the Doctor had read this 
for his students, they would have seen at once that he was 

1 Grammar of Assent t pp. 144-49. 

Digitized by ^ooqLc 



as unfair to Newman as he was to the Catholic Church. 
The Catholic, then, believes in truths which he does not 
know, but only with implicit faith, which is only another 
way of saying that he is really sincere and logical in his 
explicit faith. Explicit faith is the assent we give to truths 
that are actually present to our minds — known to us. 
These truths very often include, imply, much more thau is 
actually before our minds ; but if we be really sincere in our 
explicit belief of the main truth, we take in also all that 
logically follows from it. As Newman says : ‘ We limit hence* 
forth the range of our private judgment in reference to that 
truth, and are prepared to take in, by faith, the fuller mean- 
ing of it, when the knowledge of that fuller meaning is 
acquired.’ In that fuller meaning, not yet known to us, we 
are said to have implicit faith. It is, then, a virtual, inter- 
pretative assent, implied, contained, in our actual assent to 
the truth which we believe explicitly ; and, if we were so 
disposed as to exclude this implicit belief, we should, by the 
very fact, be shown to be insincere in our profession of 
explicit faith, to have no real faith in the truth which we 
professed to hold explicitly. When, therefore, uneducated 
Catholics are said to believe the decrees of councils, 
obscnre definitions of dogma, and condemnations of errors, 
the meaning is that Catholics, one and all, no matter how 
little educated, believe openly and explicitly in the autho- 
rity and infallibility of the Church ; and by this act of 
explicit faith they take in and believe implicitly all that the 
Church teaches, and they condemn and reject all that she 
rejects and condemns. All this Dr. Salmon could have seen 
— he must have seen it — in the section of the Grammar of 
Assent, from which he took his quotation. But be did not tell 
his students that he saw it — of course, in the interest of truth. 
And in reality Dr. Salmon’s own students are doing daily, 
the very same thing which he taught them to consider so 
extravagant and so impious in us. They profess to believe 
in the Bible, and let us hope they are sincere ; but it is 
surely not uncharitable to suppose that there are more 
truths in it than they are aware of. Are they prepared to 
believe these truths when they come to know them ? If so, 

Digitized by 



they are in a state of mind similar to tbat which their 
Begins Professor condemns in us. If they ate not prepared 
to beliefs them, then they are in a much worse State of 
mind— prepared to reject God’s revelation, and, of course, 
to take tbe consequences. 

Dr. Salmon proceeds to illustrate implicit faith by a 
ridiculous story of the Fide* carbonarii, Which his highly 
intelligent audience most have enjoyed fery much, probably 
regarding it as a ‘ new definition ’ by 'the Church of Rome. 

‘ Such faith as this,’ be adds, *is held to be sufficient for 
saltation ’ (page 93). Such faith is not held to be sufficient 
by Catholics certainly, but probably even strange* things 
ate held by those who are outside the Church, ‘carried 
away by every wind of doctrine.’ Again, according to 
Dr. Salmon, a Catholic ‘may hold two opposite doctrines, 
the one explicitly, the other implicitly. ... In this case it 
is held, his implicit true faith will save him, notwithstanding 
his explicit false faith ’ (page 93). What does Dr. Salmon 
mean by ‘ false faith ’ Faith comes to us on tbe authority 
of God revealing, and surely He can reveal nothing false. 
One of the ‘ opposite doctrines,’ therefore, is only an opinion 
and the explicit rejection of a doctrine by any one, brings into 
grave doubt the reality of his belief in tbe doctrine in which tbe 
rejected one is supposed to be implicitly contained Cardinal 
Newman has put it dearly in the extract already quoted. 
‘It is in this way,’ Dr. Salmon says (that is by hofding 
opposite doctrines), ‘ that the early Fathers are defended 
when their language is directly opposed to decisions since 
made by Home ’ (page 93). Tbe Fathers named would have 
spurned the Doctor’s defence of them. He has prudently 
abstained from giving any reference to their words, hut 
neither of them has used anywhere any words tbat would 
Warrant Dr. Salmon’s silly charge of ‘ material heresy,’ 
against them. Bat he shall hear more of his reference 
to them later on. 

Tbe reol aim of all this wretched, wearying, sophistry is 
to make a show of disproving the Infallibility of tbe Church, 
or at least of bringing tbat doctrine into doubt. Dr. Salmon 
understood his young theologians of Trinity eery well. 

Digitized by 



With them it was an easy matter to discredit Catholic 
doctrine. The more grotesque the caricature of Catholic 
doctrine, the more likely it was to take with this 4 audience 
all one way of thinking,’ and that the Doctor’s own way. 
There was no fear of contradiction, no risk of inconvenient 
<9x>00~examimtion. All through his lectures be is impressing 
on the students, on the one hand, that our argument for the 
Infallibility of the Church is its necessity, and on the other 
hand, that our profession of faith is bo meagre, that there 
ea» be no need of an infallible guide to arrive at it* and to 
retain it. Now, it has been proved already that Dr Salmon 
misrepresents both our argument and our doctrine. We 
believe in the Infallibility of the Church, because God has 
expressly revealed that doctrine ; and we believe in all the 
Church teaches, because God has commanded us to believe it. 
And this divine command to hear the Church binds Dr. 
Salmon wad his theologians quite as stringently as it binds us. 
Bearing this in mind, we can appreciate the following 
pretty specimen of his logic. * If our readiness to believe 
all that God has revealed, without knowing it, is enough 
for our salvation, there is an end to the pretence that it was 
necessary for the salvation of the world’ that God should 
provide means to make men infallibly know the truth.’ 
Bat now, 4 if oar readiness to believe . . . without knowing ’ 
is not enough for our salvation, what provision is Dr. Salmon 
prepared to make for us? We are bjund to know as well 
as believe all that the Church proposes to ns- the principal 
mysteries, the Creed, the Sacraments, the Commandments, 
etc., and if, through out own fault, we are ignorant of these, 
4 oar readiness to believe without knowing ' can avail us 
nothing. And Dr. Salmon was not ignorant of our obliga- 
tion in this matter when he so misrepresented ifi- — ‘ There is 
an end/ he says, 4 of the pretence that it was necessary . . . 
that God should provide means to make men infallibly 
know the truth/ The pretence is all his own. No Catholic 
ever maintained that 4 God should provide means to make 
men infallibly know the truth.’ He has provided means to 
enable men, certainly, to know the truth, but He has not 
deprived them of their fiber ty; their wills are free, and 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



therefore, though they can know the truth', they are at 
liberty to reject it. And Dr. Salmon, not content with 
exercising this liberty himself, is labouring to get others 
to follow his example, and while doing so his logic is as 
unsound as his theology. 

Here, [he cays], is a specimen of what Roman Catholics call an 
act of faith : ‘ O my God, because Thou art true, and hast reyealed 
it, I believe that Thou art One God ; I believe that in Thy God- 
head there are three Persons ; I believe that Thy Son Jesus, became 
man and died for us ; I believe that Thou wilt reward the good in 
heaven and punish the wicked in hell ; I believe all that the Catholic 
Church teaches ; and in this belief I will live and die. 1 In other 
words, this act of faith, is a profession of explicit belief in the four 
great truths of faith, 1 and of implicit belief in all the teaching of 
the Church * (page 97). 

Now, Dr. Salmon by extending his search somewhat 
could have found in Catholic prayer-books acts of faith much 
shorter than the one quoted. He could have found the 
following : — * 0 my God, I believe in Thee ; I adore Thee ; I 
hope in Thee ; I love Thee ; I am sorry for all my sins ; I 
will never offend Thee any more.’ Now here is an act of 
faith, hope, and charity, with an act of adoration, an act of 
contrition, and a purpose of amendment; and all taken 
together are much shorter than the act of faith submitted 
to his theologians by Dr. Salmon. But Catholics in making 
such acts, have explicitly before their minds a great deal 
more than these words express. No Catholic regards such 
acts as a full and adequate profession of faith. Of this no 
one can be ignorant who has read even the most elementary 
Catholic catechism. Dr. Salmon must have known it, even 
from Father Fumiss. His object in attributing to us so 
short a creed is, to show that there can be no need of an 
infallible teacher. But he has another object also here. 
4 Now * he says, 4 substitute the word 44 Bible ” for the word 
44 Church,” and a Protestant is ready to make the same 
profession. He will declare his belief in the four truths 
already enumerated, and in all that the Bible teaches' 
(pages 97, 98). 

This special pleading of Dr. Salmon breaks down at every 
point. The profession of faith given does not satisfy the 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



obligation of either Catholic or Protestant. Each is bound 
to a great deal more of explicit faith. The Catholic is bound 
to know more, and he can learn it with the required cer- 
tainty from the Church. The Protestant is bound to know 
more, and he cannot learn it with the required certainty 
from the Bible. There can be no faith explicit or im- 
plicit without a sufficient motive, — that is the authority of 
God brought home to the believer by a competent witness. 
The authority of God is brought home to the Catholic by the 
Church — the infallible interpeter of God’s revelation. Her 
teaching has never varied, she has never contradicted her- 
self ; she teaches all her children the same truths. The 
Catholic's faith, both explicit andimplicit, is fixed and definite> 
and for both he has the same adequate motive. But when 
Dr. Salmon’s substitution of * Bible ’ for * Church ' is made, 
what does the altered profession mean in the mouth of a 
Protestant ? It means that he professes to believe all that 
he thinks the Bible teaches. Now, unless the real meaning 
of the Bible be, what the Protestant thinks it is, he does not 
really believe in God's revelation at all. If you put on the 
words of anyone a sense different from that person's own, 
they are no longer the person’s words but your own. And 
this is true of God’s word, as well as of man's word. Unless, 
then, you put on God's Word, the true sense — His own sense 
— you are not really believing in God at all. You are 
believing yourself instead. God is not your authority ; you 
are your own authority. Now how can a Protestant be 
certain that the real meaning of the Bibjie is what he 
thinks it is, when he finds ninety-nine per cent, of his 
neighbours contradicting him, and contradicting one 
another, as to its meaning on the most vital and important 
truths supposed to be contained in it ? In England alone 
there are nearly three hundred contradictory creeds, all 
supposed to be taken from the same Bible, by ‘ prayerful men.’ 
They all profess to * believe all that the Bible teaches,’ but 
they do not ‘ make the same profession of faith.’ This is the 
result of the substitution of ‘Bible’ for ‘Church,’ and it 
is a most instructive illustration of the wisdom of that 

Digitized by Google 



substitution. Another important result of the substitution 
of 4 Bible * for 4 Church ’ is the following : — 

Id fact if it were even true that a belief in Roman Infallibility 
is necessary to salvation a Protestant would be safe. For, since 
he believes implicity everything God has revealed, if God has 
revealed Roman Infallibility, he believe that too (page 98). 

. Dr. Salmon’s young men must have been startled by the 
announcement that they were in proximate danger of 
believing 4 Roman Infallibility’ ; but since in believing the 
Bible they realiy b.lieve only in themselves, and as they are 
not individually infallible, nor prejudiced in favour of 
Reman doctrines, there are no good grounds for appre- 
hending that awkward result of their professors wonder- 
working theory of implicit faith. The Doctor asks, 

If a Roman Catholic may be saved who actually contradicts 
the teaching of his Church because he did not in intention oppose 
himself to her, why may net a Protestant be saved in like manner 
who is sincerely and earnestly desirous to believe all that God 
has revealed in the Scripture, and who has learned from the 
Scripture those four great truths of faith and many others which 
make wise unto salvation, even if there le some points on which 
he has wrongly interpreted the teaching of Scripture ? (page 98). 

The Doctor gives bis Piotestant friend credit for most 
acute spiritual intuition when he puts his shortcomings so 
lightly : — 4 Even if there be some points on which be has 
wrongly interpreted the teaching of Scripture,* It would 
be much less difficult to count the 4 points,’ on which he 
would have Rightly interpreted the teaching of Scripture. 
But the Doctor’s difficulty is a phantom. The Catholic may 
be saved if he believe with supernatural faith, in the truths 
named by Dr. Salmon, provided bis igaoratoe of the other 
truths of faith be inculpable, and provided also that he he 
free from mortal sin. And a Protestant may be saved on 
exactly the same conditions. But then, the Doctor must see, 
that such a case is most exceptional, and that the doctrine 
of Infallibility is not affected by it all The Protestant and 
the Catholic are bound to know and behove a great deal 
mere^then Dr. Salmon takes for gradated, and the real 
question, which he cleverly ignore?, is whether the Catholic 

Digitized by ^ ooqLc 



is not more likely to, get tbe required knowledge from tbe 
Infallible Cburcb, than the Protestant is to get it from the 
Bible, interpreted by bis fallible self? Tbe Catholic relies on 
God’s explicit repeated promise to guard His Church from 
error in her teaching. Dr. Salmon relies on the spiritual 
intuition of the ‘ prayerful man,’ though Scripture, tradition, 
experience, and common sense, contradict him. Conflicting 
creeds, almost innumerable, are the direct result of the 
substitution of Bible for Church as recommended by 
Dr. Salmon, and his special pleading cannot obscure that 
notorious fact. 

Dr. Salmon has a way of disposing of Church authority, 
- which his students must have regarded as decisive. If the 
Catholic theory be correct, then Dr. Salmon maintains that 
the Church, so far from being a guide to salvation, is an 
obstruction, a source of ruin to sculs. Every fresh definition 
narrows the way to heaven, and things would have been 
better 4 if the Church had but held her peace.* 1 1 cannot 
help remarking,’ he says, ‘in passing, how this theory repre- 
sents the Church not as helping men on their heavenly way, 
but as making tbe way of salvation more difficult. Every 
fresh interposition of her authority closes up some way to 
heaven which had been open before’ (page 94). And he 
illustrates this by the dogmas of the Immaculate Con- 
ception and Papal Infallibility, which people were free 
to hold or reject before the definition, but which they are 
now bound to believe, ‘on peril of forfeiting their salvation.’ 
Now we shall invite the Doctor to go back some centuries 
in our history in order to test his argument. Let him test 
it at tbe time that our Blessed Lord Himself lived on earth. 
Dr. Salmon eannot deny that a greater measure of explicit 
foitb has been necessary since our Lord’s coming than was 
required before. Therefore, according to the Doctor’s logic, 
the way of salvation has been only made more difficult. His 
coming ‘ closed up ’ a way to heaven which had been open 
before; and it would have been better that He had «ot 
Cpme at all ! The Regius Professor of Trinity is, no doofet, 
a great man, but he was not consulted *8 ttf> lb# conditions 
on which seals are to be saved. He mast take from God 

Digitized by AjOOQle 



the terms of salvation, just as humbly as the college 
scavenger. The Church is just what her Divine Founder 
made her. She is executing the commission she received 
from Him. Her mission is to teach the truth, not to please 
Dr. Salmon; and the Doctor’s picture of her work and 
office is a caricature, a daub. 

CTo be continued .1 J* MUBPHY. 



N EARLY all the various suggestions put forward in 
explanation of the Synoptic phenomena, can be 
recalled to the application of one or other of two principles : 
that the Evangelists made use of one another’s writings, or 
all three drew upon some common source antecedent and 
originally external to the Gospels. The former principle, 
in its various modifications, we have already considered . 1 
We were told of the close relationship of the Gospels, of 
their mutual dependence, and how each was used in the 
production and composition of the others. But when it 
came to determining the exact nature of the ‘ inter-use 1 
whether it was epitomatory, expansive, or merely supple- 
mental we saw what hopeless confusion there was among 
the patrons of the system. Even upon so fundamental and 
primary a question as the priority of the Gospels , 2 the order 
in which they first saw the light, they are not able to come 
to an agreement. And of the six and only possible com- 
binations of the first three canonical Gospels, there is not 
one which does not still continue to secure for itself the 
patronage of a considerable section among those who have 
set their faces against tradition. But even were there the 
unanimity we desiderate, the * use ’-hypothesis should still 
for other reasons be far from general acceptance. It may be 

1 I. E. Record, June, 1901. 

3 By the Gospels in this connection we understand the ' Synoptic * Gospels. 
The Gospel of St. John stands on a different footing. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



there is nothing inimical in the theory to the more orthdox 
views of inspiration, though it is not always easy to 
reconcile the variations of the later Evangelists with the 
inspirational character of the Gospels they made use of or 
borrowed from. But in its application it refuses to grasp 
completely the range and variety of the difficulties it was 
framed to solve. The material similarities it may account 
for, the coincidences, too, in order and arrangement, and 
perhaps in some measure the variations of both. But it has 
failed at least to grapple successfully with the peculiarly 
distributed and intermittent verbal agreements. And for 
this, were there no other reason, since the solution of a 
problem is to be sought at the point of greatest difficulty, 
the theory should be thought incomplete and inadequate. 

There remains to be considered the second principle 
which supposes our Evangelists to have all drawn upon a 
common source which, owing to different circumstances, and 
particular needs, embodied itself somewhat variously in each. 
But was this source a written or oral one ? was it documen- 
tary or merely the stereotyped or settled tradition of early 
apostolic teaching? And here we are met with the 
inevitable two opinions, which furnish us with the second 
and third methods of solution — what are technically known 
as the Original Gospel theory and the theory of Oral 

We shall treat of each separately : — 


According to those who hold this theory the common 
source whence our Gospels are derived was a written 
one, though whether documentary or fragmentary, whether 
one fairly long and substantial narrative served as a 
basis, or an indefinite number of fragmentary records, all 
are not agreed. As in the case of the mutual dependence 
system the principle involved has come in for pretty free 
and fanciful application. But however variously applied or 
ingeniously disguised the fundamental idea is always easily 
discernible, that our Gospels are traceable to a common 
written source or sources. Briefly, the first three canonical 

VOL. x. E 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Gospels, they say, ace but the expansions, the more folly 
developed forms of an Original Gospel which existed 
years before them, and which, though now unhappily 
lost, managed to incorporate itself somewhat variously in 
each. The first to put forward the idea with anything like 
distinctness was Le Clerc. 1 Semler who had already dis- 
tinguished himself in the Old Testament only too gladly 
followed. And the same idea was more or less accepted, 
though not without considerable variation by Lessing, 
Niemeyer, Weber, Theiss and others.* It was not, however, 
until the time of Eichhom that the system began to be 
seriously considered. His bold though calm and imper- 
turbable assumptions could not but arrest attention, and the 
style and manner of his exposition won for it a popularity 
hitherto wanting. So much so, indeed, that the theory is 
commonly .identified with his name and he is entitled to the 
dubious honour of being, if not the parent, the step-father 
of a system long since exploded and now commonly 

It appeared to Eichhorn that the features common to all 
three Gospels, the coincidences both material and verbal, 
could be traced to a common origin, to an Original Gospel 
or Document which was the starting point of all. The 
Synoptic narratives, as we now have them, are but the more 
highly-finished forms of that primitive proto-evangelium. 
Descended from a common parent they could not but bear 
a family likeness ; and hence their strong similarity in matter 
and form, substance and style. Of this original Document 
or Gospel .there were many copies. Even before the time 
of the Evangelists it had gone through many * editions ’ and 
‘recensions.’ And though all these were practically the 
Same yet each had its own peculiarities, its own peculiar 
additions and omissions. The Evangelists did not use the 
original Document ; nor were their copies exactly the Bame. 
And hence their dissimilarity. Substantially the same, yet 
each different and distinct, such are our Gospels to-day, and 

1 Davidson, Introduction to A T.T., vol. i. p. 381. 

Q Westcott, Introduction to Study of t)e Oo&peh, p. 203. 

* Encyclopedia Britannica , art. Eichborn. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



so also were the Original Gospel and its various editions in 
pre-evangelic times. Nothing could be simpler, nothing 
more natural. In all he assumed the existence of five 
documents, four altered copies or editions, besides the 
original Document. But granted these he could account for 
all the phenomena. He supposed : — 

(1) An original Aramaic Gospel or Document. 

(2) A revised edition of it. A, a copy of which St. Matthew 

(3) A second edition of it, B, the basis of St. Luke’s 

(4) A new edition made from A and B termed C, which 
was used by St. Mark. 

(5) Another revision, D, used by St. Matthew and 
St. Luke where they agree with one another, but differ from 
St. Mark. 1 

Both the Original Gospel and its revised editions were 
all written in Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular of 
Palestine at the time ; and when used by the Evangelists had 
not as yet been translated into Greek. It never occurred to 
Eichhom that were our Gospels independent translations 
even of the same work, they could never be so strikingly 
like as in places they are. If all the original documents 
were in Syro-Chaldaic it was all but impossible that the 
Evangelists should agree, as they do so frequently, in the 
selection of strange and out of the way synonyms and 
archaic forms of expression. 1 And this, waiving for the 
moment the historical aspect of the supposition, was its 
weak point. 

There* was, of course, an easy way out of the difficulty — 
easy for here everything is gratuitous — to destroy the mono- 
poly in Aramaic manuscripts, and call in the aid of one or 
more Greek documents. And this was actually the course 
suggested by the Anglican Bishop, Dr. Marsh. At the 
same time he showed his appreciation of the adequacy 
of his predecessor’s theory by at once raising the 

1 Speaker' t Commentary , New Teetament, vol i. p. xi. 

9 Comelj, Introduction, vol. iii. p. 174. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



number of documents from five to eight. He assumed 
the existence of 1 * : — 

(1) An Aramaic original Gospel designated *. 

(2) A Greek translation of it k 

(3) A new edition of No. 1, with lesser («) and great* r 

(A) additions : * + a + A. 

(4) Another edition of it with other lesser (0) and greater 

(B) additions : * + p + B. 

(5) A third edition made from the two preceding : * + « 

+ P + A + B. 

(6) A fourth editiou made from No. 3, but with 
additions :K + a + y + A + T. 

(7) A fifth editiou ; this time made from No. 4, and with 
independent additions : “ + /i + y+ B + r. 

(8) An Aramaic gnomology containing the precepts, 
sayings, and parables of our Lord used by St. Matthew 
and St. Luke. It may be designated z. 

According to this elaborate genealogy St. Matthew’s 
Hebrew Gospel was made from (k + z *f a -t- A + y + V) ; 
St. Mark’s from (* + a + A-f£ + B + J); and yt. Luke’s from 
(k -f- z +/3 +B + y + T + k). 

To this it is added 

That the person who translated St. Matthew’s Hebrew 
Gospel into Greek, frequently derived assistance from the 
Gospel of St. Mark, where he had matter in connection with St. 
Matthew; and in those places, but in those places only where 
St. Mark had no matter in connection with St, Matthew, he had 
frequently recourse to St. Luke’s Gospel. 8 

But the German professor was not to be outdone. And 
again Eichhorn came forward, this time with a scheme at 
once more detailed and comprehensive, and which, though 
lacking the simplicity of his former effort, certainly put the 
Anglican Bishop’s in the shade for complexity and ingenuity. 
Four recensions of the Syro-Chaldaic original were supposed; 
and these four formed the basis of the three canonical Gospels 
as we now have them. The three oldest of these recensions 

1 Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, art. Gospels. 

9 Marsh's Diitcrtation, p. 361. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



were A, B, and D. A was enlarged with some of the greater 
additions in St. Matthew; and of it a Greek version or 
translation was soon made. B had besides other matters, 
much of the peculiar additions in St. Luke. Of it there 
was no early Greek version^ D was similarly enriched by 
other additions from the same Gospel and had the additional 
advantage of being very early translated into Greek. C was 
a new recension made from A and B ; but since in the first 
part the sections of the Original Gospel together with the 
additions with which it was enlarged from A and D were 
incorrect in regard to time and place; and since in the last 
part some of the additions taken from D were also mis- 
placed, St. Matthew transposed them and brought them 
into a new connection with the Original Gospel by means 
of new transitions. Thus arose the Hebrew Gospel E of 
St. Matthew. The translator of St. Matthew made use of 
the Greek versions already existing of A and D. The 
recension C formed the basis of St. Mark's Gospel though he 
used also the existing version of A ; but the additions which 
C bad received from B he must have translated for himself. 
From B and D was made an Aramaic text which St. Luke 
translated. In doing so he was aided by the Greek version 
of D, but he must have rendered independently what belonged 
to B. He also translated several detached pieces, and these 
besides many additions of his own he inserted in his Gospel . 1 

By this time the ‘recensions’ or ‘editions’ were be- 
coming unmanageable as was seen every day in the stiff and 
capricious use to which they were put. A reaction was 
bound to set in against such wholesale assumptions, and 
soon the. primitive documents began to disappear and fade 
away as mysteriously as a few years before they had been 
called into existence. Ewald* reduced the number to three: 
an original Greek Gospel, a Hebrew collection of ‘Oracles,’ 
and a History of St. Mark. Gratz was still less exacting 
and was prepared to be thankful for two, a Hebrew original 
and a Greek translation of it. St. Matthew used the Hebrew 

5 Davidson, Introduction to X. 1 \ , vol. i. p. 354, ct *<q. 
* Westcott, Study of the Gospels, pp. 206, 207. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



document ; bis Greek translator the Greek version, as did 
also St Mark and St. Luke. Whatever other difficulties 
remained, were, in his opinion, traceable to nodding scribes 
or venturesome copyists, who inadvertantly misplaced events 
or deliberately altered words and phrasing* to bring them 
more into conformity. 

It was the same reactionary spirit which led to the 
introduction of the fragmentary form of the hypothesis. 
Hitherto, however else they might have differed, all had 
agreed in the supposition of an original and substantially 
detailed narrative, more or less altered copies of which had 
been in the hands of the different Evangelists. But for these 
constantly recurring copies and every varying editions 
Schleirmacher, the parent of the new form, substituted 
an indefinite number of fragmentary records. These were 
short narratives of distinct and separate events, memoranda 
of particular discourses or miracles or parables. They were 
variously written— some in Greek and some in Aramaic, 
and, best of all, there was an indefinite number of them. 
Different collections of these fragments came into the 
possession of the Evangelists, who after the manner of 
compilers rather than authors pieced them together and thus 
evolved their Gospels. Writing on St. Luke’s Gospel, 
Schleirmacher 1 thus delivers himself : — 

When I review the investigation which has thus been carried 
on step by step and sum up the whole, it seems to me that though 
several of the details may be more or less liable to objection, still 
the main position is firmly established that Luke is neither an 
independent writer nor has he made a compilation from works 
which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. For we 
meet with too many isolated pieces which have no relation to the 
rest, and the character of the several parts is too different to admit 
of either supposition. He is from beginning to end no more than 
the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in 
existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his 
hands. His merit in this capacity is two-fold : first that of arrange- 
ment ; this, however, is the slighter of the two. For as he found 
much already connected, not only is the correctness of his arrange- 
ment dependent on his predecessors, and much may be assigned to 
a wrong place without fault of his, but also the arrangement was 

Schleirmaoher’u Essay on St. Luke, Bishop Thirl wall’s translation, p, 313. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 

?HE synoptic problem 


by this rendered much easier than if he had found all the parts 
separate. But the far greater merit is this, that he has admitted 
scarcely any pieces but what are peculiarly genuine and good ; for 
this was certainly not the effect of accident, but the fruit of a 
judiciously instituted investigation and a well-weighed choice. 

Schleirmacher himself only ventured to apply his theory 
to the third Gospel. But evidently there was just the same 
reason for its application to the others, inasmuch as they all 
partake of a more or less common character. And Renan 
was not without seeing this ; for what the German had 
done for St. Luke’s Gospel the versatile Frenchman took 
upon himself to do for St. Mark’s, which he believed to 
have been the oldest, and the nucleus out of which grew the 
fuller narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke . 1 St. Matthew 
and Si Luke acted in much the same manner as Renan 
himself, who embodied in his works the comments of the 
German rationalists, without apparently much examination, 
and less acknowledgment. 

And here we may note, in passing, the skilful ingenuity 
and insidiousness of rationalistic methods. The authority 
of the Gospels is not openly denied, not even seriously ques- 
tioned— at least primd facie ; but the thin end of the wedge 
is skilfully and silently introduced. The theological aspect 
of the question is blurred and obscured, and made to appear 
as one of mere historical value and literary criticism. In a 
sense, though a poor one, the genuineness of our Gospels is 
admitted. Our Evangelists were not authors, but collectors 
— mere compilers of documents or fragments, about whose 
origin and history, and, therefore, authority, we know very 
little. Eichhom’s original Gospel had, indeed, Apostolic 
sanction, but was composed by some person or persons 
unknown ; and the same is true of the recensional manipu- 
lations of Marsh and Gratz. The ultimate authority of the 
Gospels is shifted from the Apostles, and made to rest upon 
pre-Evangelic writers, whose names tradition has not 
thought fit to record. Instead of the testimonies of three 
independent witnesses whose names are familiar, and 
whose character for truth, honesty, and candour, are easily 

1 Let ]fvang\U$, p. 177 ; 1877. 

Digitized by i^ooQle 



demonstrable, the scene is changed to a dim twilight and 
shadowy region, where all is darkness and mist, and 
everything unknown and unknowable. 

We need have no fear in conceding that this hypothesis 
can be % so manipulated as to account for most, if not all, of 
the coincidences and differences of the Gospels. It is just 
as easy to suppose fifty documents as five, and no more 
difficulty in having them in Aramaic rather than in Greek, if 
so we prefer. In both cases there is exactly the same and 
only proof— the feeble imaginings of theorists. Difficulties 
are no objection here ; rather they would seem a speciality. 
There is always in stock a large and varied selection of 
documents of all shapes and sizes, and really no difficulty is 
insuperable. So far it may have the merit of adequacy as 
it certainly has of adaptability. But its truth does not, 
therefore, become apparent. It may be a possible solution, 
at most a probable, but not necessarily the true and correct 
one. Adequacy is not the only test of merit, and there are 
other conditions to be complied with before a theory so 
adaptable and capable of adjustment can be accepted. The 
question at issue is practically the origin of our Gospels, 
a purely historical matter; and, fortunately or unfortu- 
nately, there is little room, and less desire, for speculative 
or a priori reasoning, We want historical proofs. Facts 
are wanted, not empty statements or theoretic speculations ; 
and the theory which would win for itself common accep- 
tance must not merely account for the phenomena of the 
problem, but strike its roots into the historical environment 
of the years which saw the composition of the Synoptic 

But so far is this theory from having any historical founda- 
tion that all antiquity would seem in blissful ignorance either 
of Eichhorn’8 documents or Schleirmacher’s fragments. The 
Gospels make no mention of them, nor do they show any 
trace of such a stiff and compilatory origin. Incomplete and 
inexhaustive they may be, fragmentary in a sense, if you 
wish; but running through each and all is a unity of 
purpose and unity of style entirely at variance with such a 
mosaic origin. Similar in general tone and character are 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



all three ; yet each is marked by its own individuality in 
style and composition and method of narration. Each was 
written for a special purpose, each addressed to a particular 
Church, and each called forth by distinct needs and exigen- 
cies . 1 And this individualism in style and character and 
purpose is in direct opposition and flat contradiction of a 
supposition which would lower them to the level of patch- 
work, and make them, as Sanday remarks, the product of 
scissors and paste. Even St. Luke, who, in the preface to 
bis Gospel, speaks of the sources upon which he was depen- 
dent, is wholly silent about primitive documents or pre- 
Evangelic writings. And Theophilus, whom he addresses, 
is supposed to have been already instructed in the truth ; 
and not from books or writings, but from oral tradition or 
teaching (icarvK^i/s ), 2 which more than once is hinted at as 
the source or fountain whence our Gospels are derived.* 

Nor are the fathers any more enlightened on the point. 
The Apostolic fathers, the immediate successors of the 
Apostles, and living as they did at the end of the first 
century and the beginning of the second, must have known, 
or at least have heard of such writings. Yet in their works, 
as far as they have come down to us, there is never a word, 
not even a mention, of such veritable treasures. And the 
same is true of their successors in the third and fourth and 
succeeding centuries. Nor does anyone, as far as history 
records, ever seem to have dreamed of such productions 
until we come to the present age of discovery and invention. 
A passage from Epihanius 4 may, at first sight, seem to give 
some colour to the hypothesis, where speaking of the origin 
of the GospelB he employs the expression amljs myyf/s 
— ‘from the same fountain/ But, at the very most, the 
words are ambiguous, indecisive ; and in the context, if he 
is not speaking of the heavenly origin of the Gospels but of 
their earthly source, his words suit better an oral than a 
written one . 6 On the contrary, what he, in harmony with 

1 Lamy, Introduction, Part H. chap. ii. pp. 213-234. 
a St. Luke i. 5 Acte xx. 20 ; xxviii. 30, 31. 

4 Haerea, 51, 6. 

* Speaker' t Commentary , N. T., voL i. p. xi ; Westcott, Study of the Gospels, 
p. 203. 

Digitized by vjOOQle 



the other fathers, does say would seem at once destructive 
of a written origin. Papins, 1 * * who lived not more than sixty 
years after the Evangelists, tells ns that St. Mark derived his 
Gospel from St. Peter, whose interpreter he was. Irensns 1 
speaks of St. Paul as the illuminator of St. Luke, and there 
is no need to adduce the testimonies of Tertullian, Clement 
of Alexandria, Pantaenus, and John the Elder, for the 
independence and authenticity St. Matthew's Gospel.* 
Historically there is not the slightest foundation, not the 
faintest glimmer of a proof worth consideration for the 
prolific assumptions of Eichhorn and his imitators. On the 
contrary, the little that can be gleaned from their writings 
seems steadily and decisively against the theory. So much 
so, that so careful and guarded a critic as Professor Norton 
unhesitatingly affirms that ‘ it is the uniform testimony of 
ancient writers that the narratives contained in the first 
three Gospels dere such as had been orally taught by the 
Apostles, and that Matthew wrote down what he preached, 
and Mark and Luke what they had heard.’ 4 5 

And this very silence is all the more remarkable when 
we come to consider the character and nature of these 
documents. The Original Gospel must have been a work 
of great authority. This is implied in the fact that it was 
so frequently copied, and finally made the basis of the 
canonical Gospels. That it was so, however, is distinctly 
stated by Eichhorn and Marsh. Eichhorn says it was a work 
sanctioned and approved by the Apostles ; and Marsh, 
writing on the same subject, says * it was drawn up from 
communications made by the Apostles, and, therefore, was 
not only a work of good authority, but a work which was 
thought worthy of furnishing materials to any of the 
Apostles who had formed the resolution of writing a more 
complete history. ’* Nor are Scbleirmacher and Renan less 
exacting in their demands as to the reputable character of 

1 Norton, (Itmtinenets of the Go spelt, second edition, vol. i. pp. 271-283. 

* Eusebius, E.H.V. 8. 

Knabenbauer, St. Matthew , Introduction. 

* Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 280. 

5 March’s Dissertation, p. 363. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



the ‘ odds and ends ’ oat of which they would compose oar 
Gospels. The original work was frequently translated — 
copies of it in Greek or Aramaic were in possession of 
most, if not all, the Churches. It went through many 
editions, and must have been extremely ‘popular. It 
enjoyed a pretty large circulation; it was highly thought 
of by the Apostles; it formed the nucleus of our present 
Gospels; and was everywhere received with joy by the 
early Christians. How is it that towards the end of the 
first century there is not the slightest trace, the faintest 
glimmer of a document so important, so valuable, and so 
widely Spread and read? We hear and read of heretical 
corruptions, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the 
Gospel of Marcion. Numerous apocryphal Gospels too have 
floated down to us, and so have many literary frauds 
and forgeries of little or no importance. Even our present 

canonical Gospels, which are but fifth-rate, or eighth-rate, 
transcripts have managed to survive. But of this Original 
Gospel, once the only Evangelic writing, copies of which 
were in existence wherever Christianity had been preached, 
which embodied for Christians everything and all things 
they held near and dear, there is now not the slightest 
trace. It has vanished quite. No such work has been 
preserved, no trace of such a work is to be found ; it is not 
mentioned, or quoted, referred to, or made use of in any 
work of antiquity. It would have been the last work to 
perish had it ever existed, and, from its nature, the most 
likely to leave its impress behind. And the fact that there 
is no trace of it, no mention of it, no use of it, makes it all 
but certain that no such work ever existed outside the 
imaginations of men such as Marsh and Renan and their 
followers . 1 

But it may be asked, was this constant editing and trans- 
lating a likely method of procedure in the circumstances ? 
At present it is but too true that of the making of books 
there is no end, when editions and revisions are appearing 
eveiy other day in quick and rapid succession. But was it 

1 Olahausen, Oft the Gotpele , toI. i. p. 33. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



so in the early centuries ? Was it so in the circumstances 
which saw the rise of our Gospels ? Was it so in Palestine 
in the time of the Apostles? Not at all. There were not 
the facilities. Those were not the days of authors and 
publishers, or 'of printing presses and typewriters ; and even 
if they were it is very uncertain how far their services might 
have been requisitioned. The Jews were never a remarkably 
literary people. They had no profane literature. For them 
their Scriptures, the Law and the Prophets and the Hagio- 
grapha, had been all sufficient and satisfying, and whatever 
intellect there was in the country had been always monopo- 
lised in their elucidation and interpretation. And in this 
as in other matters the Jews, like most people of the time, 
would have preferred to rely upon their retentive memories 
than trust to fading scrolls or perishable manuscipts. All 
along from the days of Moses the vowel sounds had been a 
matter of memory and oral tradition, so also had been their 
comments and interpretations upon the Sacred BookB. It was 
not until many years after the time of Christ and the Apostles 
that they took with anything like frequency to writing, and 
then only on account of changed circumstances, the loss of 
their independence and consequent dispersion. From the 
time of Esdras, whatever writings appeared among them 
became known for the most part through Alexandrine trans- 
lators, and in Greek; and the comparatively recent intro- 
duction of the vowel points, not to speak of the late origin 
of the Chaldaic Paraphrases, the Mischna and the Gemera, 
attest the same truth. At the time of Christ as of old the 
motto amongst the Scribes aud Rabbins had been * commit 
nothing to writing,* and when the ancient rule or custom 
was departed *from it was only slowly and with much 

And if this were true of the learned, of the masters and 
teachers, it would be still more true of the humbler classes, 
whence, for the most part, though not exclusively, the early 
Christian converts were drawn. Among them the art of writ- 
ing would necessarily be rare. Tradition, ever the dominant 
factor amongst the learned and the leisured would of necessity 
communicate itself to the people and stamp out whatever 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



promptings there might be to literary effort. Yet with 
everything exactly the reverse , 1 with a non-literary people 
and a people of very little literary activity, with none of the 
facilities and less of the needs of modern times, the patrons 
of this system would conjure up for us a nation and a people 
as much given to writing and publication as a country in 
the heart of Europe in the days of the newspaper and the 
printing press. No one will accuse Bleek * of rigidity and 
rigorism in dealing with our Gospels or of bias and prejudice 
in favour of those who refuse to depart from tradition, but 
few will find fault with the truth of his judgment when he 
said that more had been done for this hypothesis by confident 
self-assertion than by satisfactory evidence. 

We have spoken of the adjustability of this system, that it 
can be so manipulated as tQ account for most, if not all, of the 
Synoptic phenomena. But there will be need of considerable 
pressure, and in the strain it is not always easy to steer clear 
of contradictions.’ Of the pressure needed to bring it into 
touch with the difficulties it attempts to solve, it is only 
necessary to allude to its extreme artificiality, its jaggedness 
and angularity at almost every step. Where everything 
was gratuitous one might have expected a theory more 
carefully developed, lesB stiff and stilted, and at least 
free from inconsistencies. Yet the result is a series 
of skilful documentary manipulations, so arbitary and 
fanciful as to at once arouse suspicion. On their own 
showing the Original Gospel was a document of great 
authority. It had been translated more than once. Copies 
had been made of it apparently without end, and in 
the space of a few short years it had passed through some 
several recensions and editions. It went wherever Christianity 
was preached and everywhere was apparently well received. 
Clearly it was a work of such a nature as would be jealously 
guarded and carefully watched over. Yet it was being con- 
stantly changed and altered, added to and subtracted from, 

1 Clieseler, p. 59, et teq. 

3 Introduction to N. T . , vol i. p. 256. 

* Olahausen, On the Gospels, vol i. p. 33. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



notwithstanding its nniqne importance and the interests of 
which it treated. It was of snch authority as everywhere to 
be received, yet so defective as to be changed by everyone 
into whose hands it chanced to come. Either it was highly 
thought of, or had little or no authority. If the latter, it 
could never have enjoyed the popularity it is credited with 
much less have been the basis of our present Gospels ; if the 
former, how account for the constant alteration and repairing 
it seemed ever undergoing? Evidently the two assumptions 
are inconsistent, incompatible, and cannot possibly cohere 
together. Whichever way it turns the theory is beset with 
difficulties, and in any of its arbitrary forms lacks the 
cohesion necessary for acceptance. 

The circumstances, too, which called forth this mysterious 
document, its aims and object, would' seem strangely at 
variance with what we know of that period. It could not 
have been, as is sometimes hinted at , 1 to furnish materials for 
subsequent and more full and detailed narratives. If so, 
why translate it while still in such a crude and meagre 
state ? and where was the need for hurry or anxiety, when 
the Apostles were still alive from whom more ample and 
fuller information could be had for the asking ? And see, too, 
in what a strange mode of procedure the supposition would 
involve the first Evangelist. The Original Gospel, we 
are told, had Apostolic sanction, it was nothing more 
than a fragment of Apostolic teaching whose matter 
was therefore originally supplied by the Apostles. Is it 
likely that St. Matthew, coming to write his Gospel, would 
consult a document much of whose material he may himself 
have furnished. The Hebrew Evangelist was an eye and 
ear witness of most if not all of the events narrated in his 
Gospel of the miracles and discourses. Yet this theory 
would make him seek his facts, his knowledge of our Lord, 
from Jewish converts, of whom he himself may have been 
the father in the faith. And the same is true in a much 
similar sense of St. Mark and St. Luke. They had the 
Apostles, St. Peter and St John, and the others to consult 

1 Marsh’s Di»»ertation , 

Digitized by 



and seek information from. It is scarcely probable they 
would have contented themselves with second-hand evidence 
when they could so easily have obtained the testimonies of 
eye and ear witnesses as the Apostles were. 

Nor are these the only inconsistencies. But enough has 
been said, we think, on a theory which is now referred to 
more as a landmark in the history of the question of the 
origin of our Gospels, rather than as a form of solution 
worthy of serious consideration and formal refutation. 

Thomas J. Butleb. 

Digitized by 

[ 80 ] 



The following is the text of the most, graceful and 
elegant Latin letter in which the University of Glasgow, 
on the occasion: of its Jubilee festivities, expresses its thanks 
to the Holy See for its foundation by Nicholas V., and 
invites his Holiness Pope Leo XIII. to honour its members 
by taking some share in their celebration. We give also 
the gracious reply of the Holy Father, who was much 
pleased to receive an address from a body that is almost 
exclusively Protestant ; — 





In multo nostro gaudio — quippe mox ferias saecnlares celebra- 
turis — illud potissimum gratis animis recordari libet quod amplam 
hanc Universitatem, copiis omnibus hodie ingenii atque operum 
instructam, ab ipsa sede Apostolica profectam, et cum amantis- 
sima Pontificis Maximi commendatione institutam, a maioribus 

Devotissimus enim ille Pontifex, Nicolaus Quintus, anno 
inearnationis Dominicae millesimo quadringontesimo quinqua- 
gesimo primo, sum mum suum in Sootos atque artes amorem 
praeferens, luminibus ipse omnibus et ingenii et liberalium 
artium illustrissimus, studium apud nos Generale institui, et 
doctores magistros studentesque nostros libertatibus omnibus 
quae in studio civitatis suae Bononiensis concessae fuerant, 
gaudere atque uti voluit. 

Quod tantum beneficium cum sicut pia filia matri carissimae 
acceptum referamus, illud nos decere arbitrabamur, ut Sancti- 
tatem tuam participem fore nostris gaudiis speramus, meritasque 
Sedi Apostolicae grates pro tanto merito proferamus. 

Oramus igitur ut hanc nostram felicitatem auctoritate tua 

Digitized by ^ooQle 



comulare digneris ; et si per tempora haec iniqua, per tot maris 
et viaruro difficultates, non poterit fieri ut Beatitudo tua adsistat 
feriantibus, optamus, saltern fore ut per alium quern dam bene- 
volum tuum in nos animum significes, et Universitatem hanc 
nostram, ab erudito Nicolao erectam, a Jacobo Scotoium Bege 
fotam, a Gulielmo Episcopo Glasguensi curatam atque defensam, 
a multis denique regibus nostris multis auctam beneficiis, eruditis- 
simus ipse, litterarumque Latinarum cultor elegantissimus, pro 
humanitate tua amplificare velis atque ad nova usque saecula 

Datum Glasguae, Idibus Maiis MCMI. 

Praefectus et Vice-Cancellarius. 



Iucundas scito Nobis commuues litteras vestras fuisse. 
Memoriam beneticiorum colere, multoque magis ferre prae se 
palam ac libere, virtus est non bumilia nec angusta sentientis 
animi : atque istiusmodi virtutem libet quidem in vobis agnoscere, 
studiorum optimorum ingeniique decora praeclare cumulantem. 
Quod enim Lyceum magnum, ubi vestra omnium desudat industria 
debet Apostolicae Sedi origines suas, idcirco sub solemnia eius 
saecularia ad romanum Pontificem vestra provolavit cogitatio 
memor, atque ultro arcessivistis Nosmetipsos in laetitiae 
societatem, tamquam desideraturi aliquid, si voluntatis Nostrae 
signification© in hoc tempore caruissetis. Equidcm gratum 
habemus facimusque plurimi tale ofiicium humanitatis cum 
iudicii aequitate conjunctum. Memoria autom votera repetentes, 
utique diversamur apud vos animo per hos dies, reique tarn utiliter 
a Nicolao V. Pontifice rnaximo institutae cogitatione delectamur. 
Quo quidem instituto certe magnus ille decossor Noster de 
Sootorum genere immortaliter meruit ; praetereaque et ipse in 
aperto posuit, romani pontificatus virtutem in elegantiam 
doctrinae, in studia ingenuarum artium, quibus maxime rebus 
alitur humanitas gentium, ad incrementum suapte natura infiuere. 
Cetera istud maiorum disciplinarum nobile domicilium constanter 
florere cupimus salutarium ubertate fructuum et gloria nominis : 
Deumque omnipotentem comprecamur, ut dootos labores vestros 
VOL. X. V 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



omnium genere ad veritatem dirigere, vosque universos perfects 
Nobiscum caritate coniungere benigne velifc. 

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum die IX Iunii Anno MDCCCCI. 
Fontificatus Nostri vicesimo quarto. 



Limerici, 4 Mati , 1901. 

Eminentissime Domine, 

Quam in singulis hujus dioecesis paroeciis ruralibus plerumque 
singulae tantum ecclesiae existant, et ex alia parte maxime conferat 
ad augendum volentium Jubilaeum lucrari numerum et ad pieta- 
tem fidelium fovendara si visitationes ecclesiarum processionaliter 
fiant, ausim ab Eminentia Tua exquirere utruum mihi liceat visits- 
tionum numerum reducere in favorem eorum qui ecclesiam suam 
parochialem, in locis ubi unica existat, hoc modo visitent, scilicet, 
processionaliter, duce parocho, in ecclesiam ingrediantur, tunc 
egressi circuitum ecclesiae, hymnos cantando, vel preces effun- 
dendo per viam aliquanto longiorem faciant, et sic deinceps donee 
quatuor visitationes singulis vicibus absolutae fuerint. 

Quod si stricte loquendo lieri non potest, forsan Sanctitas Sua 
pro sua benevolentia, habita hujus regionis circumstantiarum 
ratione, illud tanquam favorem specialem concederc dignabitur. 

Quae dum scribo, precor Deum ut Eminentiam Tuam diu 
sospitem serve t. 

Eminentiab Tuae 

Humillimus et addictissimus sorvus in Christo, 

•i* Edvardus Thomas, 

Ejnscopus Lime rice ns\s. 

Sacra Poenitentiaria, perlectis expositis, ad praemissa res- 
pondet : Ubi una tantum ecclesia potuit designari eaque proces- 
sionaliter sit visitanda, non est opus ut introitu et exitu pluries 
eadem die visitetur. 

Datum Romae ex Sacra Poenitentiaria die 30 Maii 1901. 

D. Mannajoli, S, P. Cation . 
R. Oelli, S. P, Substit. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 









Minister Generalis Ordinis Min. Cap., sub die 12 Jan. 1900, 
S. R. et U. Inquisitioni exposuit, quod Ordo Cap. Decreto diei 
3 Julii 1625 a S. Sede obtinuerat Indulfcura, vi cujus Ministris 
Provincialibus ultra Montes concedebatur facultas prooedendi 
contra suos subditos in Causis ad S. Officium spectantibus in locis 
ubi haereses impune grassarentur, et Sanctum Officium Inqui- 
sitionis, neo per Inquisi tores, nec per locorum Ordinarios 

Exbibuit eidem S. Inquisitioni omnia documents hocce Indul- 
tum concernentia, quae referentur in Bullario, Capuc. 'tom. I. 
pp. 73,74, idest textum ejusdem Indulti, una cum variis instruc- 
tionibus et notis, quibus determinatur modus, quo haecce facultas 
in praxim deducenda est, et etiam citantur casus, in quibus 
Ministri Provinciales ultra Montes tali privilegio usi sunt. 

Cum vero subortum esset dubium, utrum in hocce privilegio 
comprehenderetur etiam casus sollicitationis ad turpia in Confes- 
sione etc., idem Minister Generalis hac super re authenticum a 
S. Officio imploravit responsum. 

Porro, sub die 29 Januarii vertentis anni, S. Officium super 
expositum dubium sequens dedit Decretum, quo negative respon- 
detur ad casum et simul declarator, privilegium suppositum non 
amplius existere. 


Roma li 29 Gennajo 1901. 

Con letters de 12 Gennajo delPanno scorso la P. V. Rma nella 
supposizione che sia tuttora in vigore un privilegio accordata nel 
1625 dalla Suprema Congregazione del S. U. a codesto Ordine 
Religiose ‘ ut in locis ubi haereses impune grassantur et S. Inqui- 
sitionis officium nec per Inquisitores nec per locorum Ordinarios 
exercetur, contra proprios subditos, in causis ad S. Officium 
spectantibus, procedere (Superiores) possint,’ domandava se tal 
privilegio si estendesse anche al deiitto di sollecitazione. 

Discussa la Causa nella Congregazione di fer. IV. 23 corr., gli 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



Bmi. e Rmi. Signori Cakld. Inqri. Genii hanno decretato : * Nega- 
tive, et privilegium de quo sermo, non existere.’ 

Tanto lo scrivente ha il dovere di portare a notizia della P. V. 
Ema e con sensi della piu distinta stima ha l’onore di potersi 

Della P. V. Ema 

Devmo servo 

Casimibo Arcivbscovo di Lepanto, Assessore. 






In praesenti rerum aoerbitate, qua Eeligiosorum coetus etiam 
apud vos premuntur, solatium Nobis attulerunt singulars virtus 
et industria, quibus ad eorum incolumitatem et iura tuenda navi ter 
incumbis, in id aocitis Episcopis, atque annitentibus saeculari 
clero et fidelibus, ex omni Lusitania. 

Quae et quanta sint profecto, in rem cum sacram turn civilem, 
eorumdem lnstitutorum merits, domi forisque comparata, non 
est cur multis prosequamur, quum ea non semcl enucleaverimus 
praesertim vero in Epistola ad dilectum Filium Nostrum Cardi- 
nalem Archiepiscopum Parisiensem data die XXIII postremi 

Ulud Nobis potius eorSi est, Tibi ceterisque impense gratulari, 
impertiri laudes, animum addere, concordibus studiis vestria 
felicem ominari exitum. Nostra sane spcs in ipsa primum caussae 
bonitate consistit ; deinde vero in coniunctione animorum arctiori, 
catholicos inter, in iis provehendis quae iusta et recta sunt, 
quaeque in patriae simul et Ecolesiae cedunt emolumontum. 

Haeo porro ut facilius vobis et prospere Lusitaniae eveniant, 
benedictionem Apostolicam Tibi, Episcopis collegis Tuis, utriusque 
ordinis clero et catholicis universis amantissime impertimus. 

Datum Eomae, apud S. Petrum, ipsa die Paschatis MCMI, 
Pontiticatus Nostri anno vicesimo quarto. 

LEO PP. xni. 

Digitized by ^ooqLc 





Beatissime Pater, 

Episcopus N. N. ad pedes S. V. provolutus, humillime prout 
•sequitur exponit. 

Gulielmus R. protestans, promittens se eatholicam fidem 
amplexnrum fore, humiliter petit ut sibi dispensatio ab interpel- 
landa coniuqc prioie concedatur, eum in finem ut cum Maria R. 
catholica matrimonium in facie Ecclesiae contrahere possit. 

Praediotus Gulielmus matrimonium iniverat cum muliere 
protestantica coram magistratu civili. Nec ipse vir, nec ipsa 
nralier, unquam S. Baptismum susceperunt, ideoque eorum 
matrimonium simpliciter legitimum. Postea, obtento divortio 
civili, se separarunt, nec ullo modo constat ubinam terrarum mulier 
nunc versetur. Omnes conatus earn inveniendi frustra suscepti, 
Hanc ob causam dispensatio ab interpellatione enixe rogatur. 

Et Dens, etc. 

Feria IV, die 13 Martii 1901 

In Congregatione Generali S. R. et U. Inquisitionis coram 
EEmis. ac RRmis. DD. Gardinalibus Generalibus Inquisitoribus 
habita, propositis praedictis precibus, praehabi toque RR. DD. 
Consultorum voto, iidem EE. ac RR. Patres respondendum man- 
darunt : 

* Curet Episcopus conversionem viri et, praevio baptismate, 
supplicandum BSmo. pro dispensatione ab interpellatione, qua- 
tenus ex processu saltern summario constet baptismum neque 
viro neque mulieri protestanticae collatum fuisse et interpellationem 
vel impossibilem vel inutilem fore.’ 

Sequenti vero feria VI, die 15 eiusdem mensis et anni, in 
solita audientia SS. D. N. Leonis Div. Prov. Pp. XIII a R. P. D. 
Adsessore habita, SSmus. resolutionem EE. ac RR. Patrum 
adprobavit et gratiam concessit. 

I. Can. Mancini, 8. B. et U. Inquisit . Notarius. 





Beatissime Pater, 

N. N. annos circiter sexaginta natus, natione Maurus ex 
longinqua Mauritaniae Occidentalis provincia, olim mabumetanus, 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



nunc fidei catholicae cathechumenus, gratiam Baptismi postuiat ; 
at matrimonio quondam in sua patria valide inito cum uxore 
infidel i sectae Mahumetanorum ligatus, novam uxorem eiusdem 
sectae ex hoc nunc a vigintiquinque annis in nostra regione 
migrates duxit, de qua sex filios fiiiasve adhuc vivos hahuit, ot 
quam proinde derelinquere illi durissimum esset, nec sine scandalo 
quodam posset. 

Nulla prorsus possihilitas illi remanet primam uxorem in sua 
patria relictam, ihique alio viro nuptam, adeundi ad earn interpel- 
laudam : ohstacula plane insuperabilia sunt, quia pars infidelis 
degit in longinquissimi3, hostilibus ac barbaris provinces, ubi 
nullo Christiano ne aditus quidem pateat ; et alia ex parte nulla 
adesset spes earn a suo secundo rnarito arripiendi christianamque 
ad fidem adducendi. 

Et Deus, etc. ^ 

Feria IV, die 13 Martii 1901 

In Congregatione Generali S. R. et U. Inquisitionis, ab 
EEmis. ac RRmis. DD. Cardinalibus Generalibus Inquisitoribus 
habita, propositis praedictis precibus, praehabitoque RR. DD. 
Consultonim voto, iidem EE. ac RR. Patres respondendum man- 
darunt : 

‘ Modo ex processu saltern summario constet interpellationem 
vel impossibilem vel inutilem fore, supplicandum SSmo. pro 
petita dispensatione.’ 

Sequenti vero feria VI, die 15 eiusdem mensis et anni, in 
^solita audientia SB. D. N. Leonis Div. Prov. Pp. XIII, a R. P. D. 
Adsessore S. Officii habita, SSmus. resolutionem EE. ac RR. 
Patrum adprobavit et petitam gratiam concessit. 

I. Can. Mancini, S. R. et U . Iquisit . Notarius . 



Beatissimo Padre, 

II Vescovo della diocesi di L. in America, prostrato ai piedi 
della S. V. domanda, umilmente se possa considerarsi lecita una 
certa divozione detta della Mci7io poderosa. Essa consiste in 
immagini e medaglie, venute dall’Europa, che rappresentano una 
mano aperta con entrovi una piaga ed avente sulle punte delle dit^ 

Digitized by L^ooQLe 



le immagini del Bambino Gesi\, di Maria SS., di S. Gioacchino e 
di S. Anna. 

Che ecc. 

Feria IV, die 13 Martii 1901 

In Congregatione Generali S.. R. efc U. Inquisitionis, ab 
EEmis. et RRmis. DD. Cardinalibus Generalibus Inquisitoribus 
habita, propositis suprascriptis precibus, praehabitoque RR. DD. 
Consultorum voto, EEmi. ac RRmi. Patrea respondendum man- 
darunt : 

* Imaginem praedictam esse praedamnatam a Concilio Triden- 
tino ; et curet Episcopus ut destruantur imagines, numismata et 
quodcnmque scriptum, seu precandi formula, ad dictam devo- 
tionem pertinentia.' 

Seqnenti vero feria VI eiusdem mensis et anni, in solita 
audientia SS. I). N. Leonis Div. Prov. Pp. XIII a R. P. D. 
Adsessore S. Officii habita, SSmus. D. N. resolutionem EE. ac 
RR. Patrum adprobavit. 

I. Can. Mancini, S. 12. ct U . Inquisit. Notarius . 




Beatissimo Padre, 

L'Arcivescovo di N. nelle Americhe, prostrato ai piedi della 
S. V., umilmente espone cbe un nuovo articolo di divozione & 
stato ivi messo in commercio sotto il nome di Nuova Croce della 
Immacolata Concezione. E’una medaglia in forma di croce, por- 
tante la immagine non di N. S. G. C., ma della Immacolata da 
nna parte e de’ Sauri Cuori col monogramma della B. V. dall'altra. 
Chiede percid l’oracola della S. V. se siifata divozione possa o pur 
no appro varsi. 

Che ecc. 

Feria IV, die 13 Martii 1901 

In Congregatione Generali S. R. et U. Inquisitionis, ab 
EEmis. ac RRmis. DD. Cardinalibus Generalibus Inquisitoribus 
habita, propositis supradictis precibus, praehabitoque RR. DD. 
Consultorum voto iidem EE. ac RR. Patres respondendum man- 
darunt : 

4 Devotionem praedictam, uti est, non e9se probandum.* 
Se<juenti vero feria VI eiusdem mensis et anni, iq 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



solita audientia SS. D. N. Leonis Div. Prov. Pp. XIII, a R. P. D. 
Adsessore S. Officii habita, SSmus. D. N. resolutionem EE. ©t 
RR. Patrum adprobavit. 

I. Can. Mancini S. B. et U. Inquisit. Notarius. 





Beatissime Pater, 

Arcbiepiscopus N. N., ad Sanctitatis Vestrae pedes provolutus, 
bumiliter quae sequuntur exponit : 

Instructio S. C. Inquisitionis 14 Iulii 1753 negat Vicariis 
Episcoporum facultatem delegandi confessarium ut denuntiationem 
exoipiat sollicifcationis ad turpia. Iam vero saepe occurrit vel 
occurrere potest, ut Episcopus ab urbe residentiali absit, vel domi 
aegrotet, vel alio quocumque modo impediatur, et interim casus 
sit urgentior, ita ut confessarius qui delegationem petit, nequeat 
eum adiro. Hac de causa a Sanctitate Vestra humiliter rogo 
praedictam, facultatem, qua Vicarii Generalss huius Archidioe- 
ceseos delegare possint in casibus necessariis simplices confessarios 
ut denuntiationes excipiant. 

Quod et Deus etc. 

Feria IV % die 20 Martii , 1901 

In Congregatione Generali S. R. et U. Inquisitionis ab EEmis. 
ab RRmis. DD. Cardinalibus Generalibus Inquisitoribus babita, 
propositis supradictis precibus, praehabitoque RR. DD. Consul- 
torum voto, iidem EE. ac RR. Patres rescribendum manda- 
runt : 

4 Supplicandum SSmo. juxta preces.’ 

Sequenti vero feria VI, die 22 eiusdem mensis et anni, in 
solita audientia SS. D. N. Leonis Div. Prov. Pp. XIII a R. P. D. 
Adsessore S. Officii babita, SSmus. D. N. petitam gratiam benigne 

J. Can. Mancini, S . B. et U. Inquisit. Notarius. 

Digitized by LjOOQLC 







Dilecte Fili, salutem et Apostolicam benedictionem. 

Nos quidem et novimus et alias laudavimus positam a vobis 
intelligenter operam in scientia eorum concentuum sacrorum, de 
qnibus memoriae est proditum, ad magnum Gregorium referendos 
esse auctorem. 

Similique ratione non potest Nobis non probari vester ille in 
conquirendis vulgandisque veteribus de eo genere monumentis 
tarn operoso tamque constanter insumptus labor. Quorum labo- 
rum fructus vario9 videmus iis consignatos voluminibus nec sane 
paucis, quae Nobis grato admodum niunere diversis temporibus 
misistis, quaeque late iam, ut accepimus, in luce atque oculis 
hominum versantur, ac multifariam quotidiano recipiuntur usu. 
Omnino quidquid suscipitur studii in hac illustranda augendaque 
rituum sanctissimorum comite atque adiutrice disciplina, dandum 
laudi est, non solum propter ingenium et industriam, sed etiam, 
quod longe maius, propter speratum divini cultus incrementum. 
Siquidem gregoriana concentus prudentissime sunt sapientis- 
simeque ad illuminandum verborum sententias inventi, atque 
inest in eis, si modo adhibeantur perite, magna vis et mirifica 
quaedam mixta gravitati suavitas, quae facile illapsa audientium 
in animos pips ciere motus cogitationesque salutares alere tempes- 
tive queat. Quotquot igitur sunt, praesertira ex alterutro ordine 
Cieri, qui se posse aliquid in hac vel scientia vel arte sentiant, pro 
sua quemque facultate elaborare omnes convenit sollerter et libere. 
Salva quippe caritate rautua et ea, quae debetur Ecclesiae obtem- 
peratione ac reverentia, multum prodesse multorum in eadem re 
stndia possunt, ut vestra ad hanc diem. 

Divinorum munerum auspicem, itemque paternae benevolentiae 
Nostrae testem tibi, dilecte fili, sodalibusque tuis apostolicam 
benedictionem peramanter in Domino impertimus. 

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, die XVII Maii Anno 
MPCQCQI- Pontificatus Nostri vicesimo quarto. 


Digitized by L^ooQle 








Emus. Dnus. Franciscus Salesius Bauer, Episcopus Brunensis, 
a Sacrorum Rituum Congregatione sequentium dubiorum solu- 
tionem humiliter expostulavit ; nimirum : 

I. Utrum Lifcaniae Lauretanae post tertium Agnus Dei rite ac 
recte absolvi possint, addito statim versiculo, respotisorio et oratione, 
vel inserto prius Christe, audi nos , etc. prouti fit in Litaniis Sancto- 
rum, cum Pater et Are vel uno alterove? 

II. Oratio ad S. Ioseph, in mense Octobri ponenda eat inter 
Rosarium et Litanias, an post Litanias rite absolutas? 

III. Quandonam dicendae sunt cum populo preces post quamvis 
Missam sine cantu praescriptae, si S. Rosarium, Litaniae et oratio 
ad S. Ioseph non eodem cum Missa momento finiunt? 

Et Sacra eadem Congregatio, ad relationem subscript Secretarii, 
audito voto Commissionis Liturgicae omnibusque perpensis respon- 
dendum censuit : 

Ad I. Litaniae Lauretanae concludendae sunt uti in Appendice 
Ritualis Romani, omissis Christe audi nos , etc. ; versiculus autem, 
responsorium et oratio post dictas Litanias mutari possunt pro 
temporis diversitate. 

Ad II. Oratio ad S. Ioseph in fine Litaniarum Lauretanarum 
adiungi potest, iuxta prudens arhitrium Episcopi. 

Ad III. ‘ Preces a SSmo. D. N. Leone Papa XIII in fine 
Missae praescriptae recitandae sunt immediate expleto ultimo 
Evangelio,* ita ut aliae preces interponi nequeant, iuxta decisionem 
S. R. C. in una Basileen. N. 3682, diei 23 Novembris 1887 ; et 3i, 
Missa absQiuta, Rosarium a populo recitandum non sit finitum, 
Celebrans dictas preces recitet cum Ministro solo. 

Atque ita rescripsit. Die 7 Decembris 1900. 

L. * S. 

D. Card. Ferrata, Praef . 

D. Panici, Archiep. Laodicen. Secret , 

Digitized by ^ ooqLc 

91 ] 


Le Cardinal Meignan. Par TAbbe Henri Boissonnot, 
Son Secretaire Intime. Paris : Victor Lecoffre, Rue 
Bonaparte, 90. 

To the number of interesting biographies of the great French 
ecclesiastics of the nineteenth century we have now to add that 
of the most learned man of them all, the late Cardinal Meignan. 
The biographies of Mgr. Dupanloup by the Abb6 Lagrange, of 
Cardinal Pie by Mgr. Baunard, of Mgr. Darboy by Cardinal 
Foulon, and of Cardinal Guilbert by Mgr. Ricard give an out- 
sider a very clear and vivid insight into the life and spirit of the 
Church in France. The Life of Cardinal Meignan , although written 
by his private secretary, is less of a eulogy than any of the works 
we have mentioned. It is more descriptive and historical. It 
allows letters and documents of unquestioned authenticity to 
speak for themselves and for the memory of the illustrious subject 
of the biography. The result is that he stands out, we shall not say 
greater than any of his ecclesiastical contemporaries, but with a 
marked individuality of his own, which distinguishes him from 
them by characteristics that give a very special interest to his 

Every chapter in this volume is really full of interest. The 
family, the vocation, the school and college life of the future 
Cardinal reveal to us an aspect of French existence with w hich 
the newspapers do very little to make us familiar. But, perhaps, 
for those who take an interest in the same sort of studies as the 
Abb£ Meignan the two most interesting chapters in the book are 
those which deal with his life at Munich and at Berlin. Nothing 
could well be more different than the atmosphere of a French 
seminary and that of a German university, and when the Abb£ 
Meignan, fresh from Le Mans and St. Sulpice, found himself in 
the capital of Bavaria, he readily experienced the difference. It 
was no small advantage to him to study the methods of such 
active and influential men as Moehler, Gorres, Haneberg, Klee, 
Dbllinger, Philips, and Windischman. He was intended by his 
bishop to teach philosophy and he set to work at once to master 
the systems then in vogue and their relations to the Church and 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



revealed religion. The oopious notes which filled his 1 Cahiers ' 
during this year of study served him well in after years, and 
enabled him to cope with opponents who drew their conclusions 
secondhand from sources that might well excite distrust. The 
strong and the weak points in the philosophy of Kant, Hegel and 
Schelling, are noted with great acumen and skill and weighed in 
the balance of 9 sound and capable mind. 

But the advantages derived from the sojourn in Munich are if 
anything surpassed by those of the year spent in Berlin. Here, 
no doubt, even mere than in Munich, the faith of the young 
French priest ran serious risks. Brought daily face to face with 
teaching of men like Rothe, Ritchl, Keil, Hengstenberg, Ewald, 
he knew what it was to live in the midst of anxiety and danger. 
But whenever the demon of doubt assailed him he thought of his 
happy home in France and of the lessons of philosophy and 
exegesis taught him at his mother’s knee, and he recognised 
their superiority over the theories and contentions that seethed 
around him. It was his delight to witness with what ardour 
the contending schools in this atmosphere of free thought 
hastened to demolish one another, with what unerring glance they 
discovered a weak point in the armour of their opponents and 
proceeded there to effect a breach. Their exact and profound 
erudition helped him to see irito the depths of questions which in 
other countries were touched only on the surface. He left the 
capital of Prussia not only unshaken in his faith but more 
convinced than ever of its truth, and brought with him a know- 
ledge of German rationalistic methods that proved of no small 
utility to the Catholics of France when Renan published his Vie 
cle Jesus, 

When the Abb6 Meignan returned to France he was induced 
by Monsignor Maret to settle in the diocese of Paris, where he 
occupied successively the post of curate at St. Jacques du Haut Pas, 
at St. Roch, and at St. Clotilde. The time spent at St. Jacques is 
particularly interesting, as it enabled the young priest to follow 
the arts* course of the Sorbonne, in close proximity to which 
he lived. At St. Roch his health broke down, and he was 
obliged to go southwards, first to Pisa, and then to Rome. His 
impressions of the Roman schools and of their attitude towards 
German rationalism ; his experiences with Passaglia and 
Perrone ; his theses for the Doctorate ; above all his impressions 
of the social and political conditions of the Papal States a9 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



revealed in his letters to Monsignor Maret, show that he was a 
man o! no ordinary perception and penetration, and when read in 
the light of subsequent events clearly prove that he saw a long 
way ahead of him. 

On his restoration to health the Abbe Meignan becomes prefect 
of studies in the Diocesan Seminary of Paris at Notre Dame des 
Champs. After the revolution of ’48 he returns to parish work. 
But it was when Kenan published his His to ire des Langues 
Sdmitiques that Meignan’s opportunity offered. He seized it with 
avidity. His PropJUties Messianiques placed him in the forefront 
of Christian apologists, and gave him a niche of honour in the 
great temple of French ecclesiastical learning. 

The road to honours was now well open to the gifted young 
priest. He, becomes a professor in the Sorbonne, Vicar-General 
of Paris, Bishop of Chalons, Bishop of Arras, and finally Cardinal 
Archbishop of Tours. He takes part in all the great movements 
of his time in Church and state. At the Vatican Council he was 
opposed to the definition of Papal Infallibility. He was convinced 
of the truth of the doctrine, but feared the world was not ready 
for its acceptance. This being his conviction he felt it not only 
his right but his duty to oppose the definition. He was the first, 
however, to recognize the validity of the great act of the Council 
once it wag carried by the majority and confirmed by the Pope. 

It would bo quite impossible, in such a notice as this, to enter 
into the details of Cardinal Meignan’s life as an ecclesiastical 
ruler. All we can say is that he lived in difficult and stormy 
times, and that the calm but resolute tenour of his life is well 
depicted in these pages. Such works are not sufficiently read in 
these countries. The government of the Church, carried out on 
the lines of the Concordat, is very different in France from that 
which prevails in English-speaking countries. It is in works like 
the present, with the official letters of nuncios, of ministers of 
state, and of bishops, that we see how it works out in practice. 

Outside of France, however, Cardinal Meignan will be remem- 
bered chiefly as a Biblical scholar, as the author of the great 
works, L'Ancien Testament dans ses Bapports avec le Nouveau et 
la Critique Modeme t Le Monde et L' Homme Primitif, scion ^la 
Bible , Les Evangiles et la Critique du XlXieme Sidcle. These 
works embody the substance of Cardinal Meignan’s contributions 
to literature. They represent the highest scholarship of the 
Church in France at the end of the nineteenth century. 

J. F. H. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Intemperance : Natural Remedies, Spiritual 

Remedies. By Professor Campbell, M.D., Honoris 
Causa R.U.I., Fellow Royal College of Physicians, 
Ireland, &c. London : Burns & Oates. 

Everything that helps in the cause of temperance is welcome 
and deserves support. Thes6 two small pamphlets of Professor 
Campbell, one on the natural remedies, and the other on the 
spiritual remedies for intemperance, are full of useful and appro- 
priate information regarding the evils with which they deal- 
Dr. Cruise, in his recently published pamphlet, shows in the 
clearest light the evil effects of alcohol on the heart, on the brain, 
and on the nervous system. Dr. Campbell shows how it affects 
the blood, the stomach, the intestines, and impedes the general 
machinery of the human system. He also dwells upon its effect 
upon the character, and whether its results are moral or material 
injury ho supplies the simple and only remedy that is capable of 
effecting a genuine cure. We cordially recommend the two little 
pamphlets to all who are interested in the work of temperance. 

Faith and Folly. By the Right Rrev. Mgr. John 
S. Vaughan. London : Burns & Oates. 1901. 

Mgr. Vaughan treats in this volume in the very attractive 
manner and style with which readers of the I. E. Record are 
familiar, a great many questions of practical, and some of them of 
actual and vital interest. The chapters on ‘Faith and Reason,* 
on ‘ Social Disturbances ; their Cause and Cure,* on ‘ Civil 
Penalties for Religious Offences,* on ‘The Ethics of Animal 
Suffering,’ give us in a happy and popular style the solution of 
questions which exercise the minds of people at the present day to 
no small extent. Of all the essays on this volume the one which 
has, perhaps, caused the greatest stir is that on the ‘ Ethics of 
Animal Suffering.* On this question Mgr. Vaughan lays down 
sound Catholic principles, and applies them with great felicity. 
This, however, has not saved him from ignorant and stupid 
attacks. We have read some of the letters on this subject which 
have been admitted into the pages of so respectable an organ 
as the Saturday Review , and for illogical and offensive imputations 
we think it would be difficult to surpass them. The essay on 
‘ Civil Penalties for Religious Offences * is most valuable and 
timely. The whole volume may safely be recommended. It will 
be a help to converts and a guide to all Catholics. J. B. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



Meditations on the Life, Teaching and Passion of 
Jesus Cheist. By Augustine Maria llg, O.S.F.C. 
Translated from the latest German Edition. Edited by 
Richard F. Clarke, S.J. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago : 
Benziger Brothers, 1901. 

This work is compiled from an old book of meditations by a 
Capuchin monk of the eighteenth century named Alphonsus Von 
Zussmerhansen. It was remodelled for modern use by Father llg 
We are not told very definitely whether the late Father Clarke, S. J., 
whose name is attached to the book, is himself the translator or 
whether he has merely edited somebody else’s translation. The 
latter would seem to be the case. 

We often hear it said that Italian books of devotion are not 
particularly suited to the tastes and temperament of English- 
speaking peoples. Why draw the line at Italian books? The 
same is true, in its way, of French books and of Spanish books. 
Here we have a German book and we confess that very many 
passages in it grate upon our senses. Why did not the translator 
or the editor expunge those passages which sound harshly in our 
ears and do for the English version what Father llg accomplished 
so successfully for German readers ? We may be told that the 
most repellent passages like the swallowing of the wondrous book 
are mere reproductions of the Bible. That may be, but the Bible 
is the Bible, and things that come in there naturally and 
beautifully are very often disfigured and debased when applied 
to conditions of life entirely different from those to which they 
owe their origin. 

J. B. 

Where is the Church of Christ? By M. Van der 
Hagan, S.J. Translated from the Dutch by Alphonsus 
Canon Van de Rydt, Sociate de S. Augustin. Bruges 
Desclee, De Browers & Co. 1901. Price, 7 

This is a very valuable little book, and we can heartily recom- 
mend it. It is controversial ; but its tone is so mild and persuasive 
that it leads, but does not seek to drive. It is remarkably clear, 
and does not shirk the difficulty of any objection that is urged 
against the Church. 

The author, moreover, clearly understands the difficulties of 
Protestants born and bred in error. He sympathises with them 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



in their efforts to work out their salvation. He points out to 
them the only road that leads to it. The genial cordiality of 
the little volnme, together with its limpid clearness of style and 
argument procured for it an immense success. In Holland four 
editions of it were quickly exhausted. It has been translated into 
French and German, and now it makes its appearance in English. 
We wish it all success. 

Twelve Trios for the Organ. By P. Piel. Op. 37. 

Diisseldorf : L. Schwann. Price, m. 2.40. 

Three part compositions for the organ, to be performed on 
two manuals and the pedals, are considered as belonging to 
the very highest class of organ music, inasmuch as in this 
arrangement the three parts can be brought out with the utmost 
distinctness, and the contrast of oolours obtainable is one of the 
most legitimate effects of organ playing. The present pieces 
are melodious and in church-like style. They are also of moderate 
length, generally comprising about thirty or forty bars, so that 
they can suitably be rendered at services. 

H. B. 

Four Litanies of the B. Y. M. For equal voices with 

Organ or Harmonium accompaniment. By Fr. Koenen. 

Op. 59. Diisseldorf : L. Schwann. Score and separate 

Voice Parts. 

These Litanies are so arranged that three invocations are 
combined, the response being invariably a very simple melody, 
which may either be sung in unison by the whole congregation, 
or, where that is not feasible, in harmony by the choir. Three of 
the settings are in three parts, the fourth is in four. They are, in 
this particular form, about the best compositions we have. 

H. B. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 

CkritHani Os tt Romani rifts." " As you are children of Christ, so be you children of Room.** 

Ex Diciis S. Paine# , In Libre Armacano, fol 9. 

The Irish 
Ecclesiastical Record 

9 UUmttjlg Journal, unber (Episcopal Sanction. 

No. 404. 

AUGUST, 1901. 

[ tfouttf) SStvlu 
VoL X. 

The Philosophical Truth of Miracles. 

Rev. P. A. Coakley, O.S.A., Dublin. 

Notre Dame de Fourviere. 

E. Leahy , Dublin. 

The Origin of Religion. 

Rev. P. Forde, Maynooth College. 

A Novel of Modern Italy. 

Rev. R. A. O’Gorman, O.S.A., Hythe, Kent. 

'Make an Act of Contrition.’ 

R. F. L. 


Resolution of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland on the Inadequate Provision for the 
Spiritual Needs of Catholics in the Royal Navy. Proper Erection of the Stations of 
the Cross. The Rosary of the Sisters of Charity. Pope Leo XIII. congratulates a 
French Dominican. Pope Leo XIII. and his * Noble Guard.' Decree of the Sacred 
Congregation of Rites on the Blessing of the Lilies of St. Anthony of Padua. 

' Notices of Books. 

The Catholic Creed. Maiy Ward. Life of the Very Rev. Felix de Andreis, C.M. 
Exposition of Christian Doctrine. The Scale of Perfection. The Life of Mother Mary 
Baptist Russell, Sister of Mercy. Hymnus * Pange Lingua/ Plain Sermons. Missa 
in Honorem S. Benedicts 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


SUBSCRIPTION s Tssobve SksOmg » *r Annum, Post Frees 

NtM Obstat. 

Gouldcs Molloy, &TA 
Censor Deb* 



Archie b* Dublin*, 
Hibemine Primate 




SSlli AMMlMb 

OAKTAL, *1,000,000. 

WT1D TTCTITIDA, £086,000. 



Mtdtrmtt Prtmm ml, /wwlA. fc Ai'nt ^ Cl 


Prompt Settlements 




Private Residence for Cure of Excessive Use of 

Special Treatment ter A loo ho Ho Dleeaaem has been neeemhUj 
establish ed in Glasgow sine* August, 1838 ; in DUBLIN since August, 189% 

Duration of Traatment-THREE WEEKS ONLY. 


T trma mmd oil information furnished by the Monomer or Sesroimty % 




All communications strictly private* 


By every 


Prices from 

£10 to 300 Ottineas. 

By every 


Prices from 

6 to aoo Guim 


Prices from 

5 to 150 Guineas. 


Applied to all Instrument# 
from 10/- per Month. 



1 ' 


Old Ptmt o mmd s BqamJ to Now mt SmmJI Coat Ordora mod Bi 
ncolvo tmmodUto and oorotol mttontlooe 








is SfllLTf. 


T HE study of ecclesiastical history, whether primitive, 
mediaeval, or modern, is full of the suggestion that 
the principle : € All revolutions begin in philosophy,’ 
admits of an extension wider than that usually 
given it, that it is capable of being lifted out of the com- 
paratively contracted sphere of purely secular politics, and 
may be applied to explain or to estimate many of these 
mighty movements which from time to time have rent the 
unity and threatened the life of the Church. In the early 
days of Christianity when some, at least, of the Apostles 
whose brows had been mitred with Pentecostal flame, were 
still preaching to Jew and Gentile the glad tidings of the 
Gospel of peace, the Church first encountered that most 
dangerous and persistent foe known as Gnosticism. Gnosti- 
cism was the name given to that method of rationalistic 
thought which was the unifying principle of all the widely 
different attempts to supersede humble belief in and faithful 
practice of all our Saviour’s teaching by a blend in whioh 
the corrupt and perverted conceptions of Christianity were 
almost entirely absorbed in the theosophy of India and the 
mysticism of Alexandria. Even though, because it was 
advocated by many a disloyal son, and because it denied 
many a particular dogma, we speak of these revolts 
as Gnostic heresies; yet, primarily, Gnosticism was a 


Digitized by AjOoqL e 



philosophy rather than a theology. It was atheory of know- 
ledge which entirely subordinated faith (rams) to science 
(yt'ocris) and claimed universal assent by professing to 
furnish a solution that none could gainsay to the old, ever- 
recurring problems of origin and of destiny, of pain, and 
sorrow, and death. It had as one of its central principles 
that matter was eternal and in its nature evil. Imbued 
with this gross philosophical error the Marcionites forbad 
marriage; the Basilidians taught transmigration of the soul; 
and the Docetae, ridiculing our idea of the Atonement as an 
illusion, held that it was only a phantom body that sweated 
blood in the Garden, and that it was a phantom that hung 
on the Cross. In the same category of theological error, 
originating in unsound philosophy, must be placed many of 
the controversies that agitated the Catholic world in the 
middle ages. Justly or unjustly the rise of false opinions on 
Matter, Predestination, and the Blessed Sacrament was 
attributed to the Neo-Platonism introduced into the west by 
our distinguished fellow-countryman, Scotus Erigena. 

. . . done into Latin by that Scottish beast, 

Erigena Joannes. 

With the decline of scholasticism in the fifteenth century 
the same phenomenon repeats itself ; and the new learning 
of the Renaissance matures into the unholy fruits of the 
Reformation. Now, while all these different forms of heresy 
share in the demerits of the particular system of philosophy 
with which they happened to be connected, either as 
principles or as conclusions, they may also have a value as 
independent propositions. And as independent propositions, 
should the examination so suggest, they may be rejected 
by reason of some defect which, though inherent to the 
particular proposition, may yet be quite accidental to the 
general system as such. Every such proposition is, of 
course, doubly condemned — condemned for its own sins, and 
for these inherited from its parent philosophy. But the 
detection of its weakness is certainly not facilitated by this 
method of examining it as it glories in all the imposing 
but illusive strength of splendid isolation. When we see it 

Digitized by AjOOQle 


co-ordinated with the other propositions in the system of 
which it forms part ; when we see it arranged with its 
fellows in due perspective ; when we see it clearly depending 
from some first principle that enunciates a philosophy which 
the Catholic heart instinctively repels, we shall be in a far 
better position for testing it ; we shall be more confident in 
our scrutiny and more emphatic in our rejection. The 
method of examining it as an independent proposition 
must be supplemented by one more appropriate and more 
thoroughgoing ; a philosophical error is most effectively 
coped with by a philosophical appreciation of its fundamental 

If the explanation of primitive and mediaeval heresy by 
contemporary philosophy may be taken as a precedent, we 
may expect to find modern philosophy influencing the rise 
and development of modern unbelief. Almost since the 
termination of the doctrinal warfare with Protestantism, 
about two hundred years ago, while protecting her children 
from heresies such as Socinianism, which were merely the 
last convulsive efforts of a slowly dying cause, and from 
heresies like Deism, which were little better than the 
fashionable cult of the moment and passed away like any 
other society craze, the Church has been engaged with 
one of the most subtle and dangerous foes she has ever 
encountered. In the course of her history, over and over 
again, she has seen nearly every particular dogma impugned 
but, for the most part, the very basis of her existence, her 
her faith in a living supernatural passed unchallenged. The 
glory of this attempt to eliminate the supernatural as an 
ever-present active element in the lives of men belongs to 
the Agnostics who follow the lead of Hume in his attack on 
the philosophical truth of miracles. It is scarcely necessary 
to remind our readers that a miracle is said to be true in a 
three-fold sense : it is said to be historically true ; philo- 
sophically true ; and logically true. The historical truth means 
that the fact purporting to be a miracle did really occur; 
as, for instance, that the Resurrection is an historical fact. 
The philosophical truth, that this historical fact is really a 
miracle. The logical truth, that this miracle was worked by 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



God in order to give His divine testimony to the truth of 
some doctrine or person. This latter being dependent on 
the other aspects comes last in order of proof and of interest. 
The evidence for the historical truth of many of the principal 
miracles to which Christianity is committed has been 
subjected to the most rigid and searching criticism. Times 
without number we have been told that it has been discredited 
as a conspiracy or explained away as an illusion. But despite 
he erudition and ability that marked the conduct of a series 
of prolonged assaults, assaults which varied often in method 
but never in intensity of purpose nor bitterness of party 
spirit, it emerged triumphantly from the ordeal and now 
stands in even greater relief and on firmer foundations. 
Even this is beginning to be recognised by the enemy who 
now desert positions such as the lateness of the date of 
composition of the Gospels, which, as essential to the 
prosecution of the campaign, they occupied not so long ago 
with infinite bluster and fanfarronade Chronology, they 
tell us, is after all a very minor outpost, indeed. And while 
some go this way and some go that in their attempts to 
decompose the aureole of miracle which, like the Crown of 
Thorns, forever encircles our Saviour’s sacred head, all 
repudiate the very notion of supernatural intervention. 
But even as the world has outgrown that stage of develop- 
ment in which its interpreters, from Celsus to Bruno, laughed 
away the works and words of our Lord as the fruit of the 
incantations of a forgotten magic, so the more astute of 
contemporary unbelievers perceived that the evolution of 
philosophy had progressed so far as to render it impossible 
to meet the assertion of the supernatural by a method so 
crude as that of insolent and cynical denial. Absolute 
affirmation and absolute denial were both equally regarded 
as bad form. They jarred upon the exclusive temperament 
of the new philosophy quite as much as an unrestrained, 
boisterous parvenu , on the haughty precisians of an 
eighteenth-century salon ; altogether in the new scheme 
of things they were nearly as much out of place as Caliban 
in the fairyland of Prospero. With the Psalmist, whom 
they would hurl from his throne in the choir of inspired 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 


song, they, too, would place dogmatic materialism under 
anathema , branding as fools those who said in their hearts 
‘there is no God.* Robed for the nonce in the mantle of 
a specious humility they insidiously whispered : ‘ We don't 
know ; we cannot tell. Not for worlds would we dream of 
denying His existence and His power of influencing human 
affairs : but poor innocents, simple inquirers as we are, 
without prejudice or predilection, swayed solely by reason, 
we shall be unable to admit either one or the other until 
you compel us to do so by demonstrating both/ 

Passing by for the present the questions of accurate 
definition of miracle and the justification we have for 
asserting the existence of any such thing as a law of nature, 
or a uniform mode of operation, we may follow St. Thomas 
and say that a miracle is an event divinely produced out- 
side the accustomed order of nature. The objection to the 
philosophical truth or cognoscibility of miracle may be 
formulated somewhat after this fashion : We can never 
know for certain whether any event is a miracle or not, be- 
cause as we neither know nor pretend to know all the laws 
of nature, this so-called miracle may, for all we know to 
the contrary, have been produced by some law of nature of 
whose existence or power we are ignorant. As Huxley puts 
it : — 

‘ Nature * means neither more nor less than that which is : the 
sum of phenomena presented to our experience : the totality of 
events past, present, and to come. Every event must bo taken 
to bo a part of nature, until proof to the contrary is supplied. And 
such proof is from the nature of the case, impossible. 

Further on he says : — 

In truth, if a dead man came to life, the fact would be evidence, 
not that any law of nature had been violated, but that these laws, 
even when they express the results of a very long and uniform 
experience, are necessarily based on incomplete knowledge, and 
are to be held only on grounds of more or loss justifiable 

And again : — 

If a piece of lead were to remain suspended by itself in the 
air the occurrence would be a miracle, in the sense of a wonderful 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



event, indeed ; but no one trained in the methods of science would 
imagine that any law of nature was really violated thereby. He 
would simply set to work to investigate the conditions under 
which so highly unexpected an occurrence took place, and thereby 
enlarge bis experience and modify his hitherto unduly narrow 
conception of the laws of nature. 1 

The principle underlying this celebrated objection has, 
more than any other, given coherence and unity to the 
movement against the supernatural, which is one of the 
most pronounced features of our modern world. Alike in 
the rapidity and extent of dissemination and in the virulence 
of its infection, this revolt against Christian ideas has few, 
if any, parallels in the history of thought. Coming upon a 
society more or less sated with materialism, the finer spirits 
of the sceptics of the eighteenth century responded to its 
touch, and rejoiced in its infinite capacity for destruction. 
Permeating the science and philosophy of England, it was 
invested with a new and deeper significance when the 
evolutionary theories of Darwin and Spencer were trans- 
forming and destroying the old time-worn ideas of genesis 
and descent. Not a few educated Catholics were of opinion 
that it must be numbered with these sceptical arguments 
of which Hume said that they produced no conviction and 
admitted of no reply. On the other hand, not merely 
aggressive publicists, professional opponents of dogmatic 
theology, and flippant sciolists jumping at any pretext for 
formally renouncing the creed they never practised, but 
many a soul haturally Christian, mauy a lone student 
imprudently confiding in the strength of his dialectic, felt in 
the decay of their faith that it was an instrument of incom- 
parable simplicity and power. When the idea of evolution 
grossly perverted or hopelessly misunderstood ; when 
discovery after discovery in the various fields of scientific 
inquiry appeared to exalt the power and extend the area 
of the blind, impersonal, immutable forces of nature and 
in corresponding ratio to depress, aye, even eliminate the 
influence of sovereign intelligence and will; when they 

1 Huxley’s Hum*', chap. vii. See also Biographical History of Philosophy, 
hy G. H. L- wes ; History of Modem Philosophy in France , Levy-Bruhl; 
Grammar of Assent and Development of Christian Doctrine , Card. Newman. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 


seemed to cut the ground of faith from the feet of mankind, 
it was then that the malignant nature of this objection fully 
revealed itself. * That which the palmer-worm hath left, 
the locust hath eaten ; and that which the locust hath left, 
the bruchus hath eaten ; and that which the bruchus hath 
left, the mildew hath destroyed. 11 It corroded whatever had 
escaped the ravaging materialism in which the literature 
of the period was steeped. It battened, like a loathsome 
parasite, upon the tissues of decaying supernatural life, and 
extinguished whatever faint, glimmering hopes might ever 
and anon light up the waste places of the Christless soul. 
The residue of spiritual resolution was sickbed o’er by the 
paralysing thought that if, after all, there existed a God 
Whose footstool was the earth and Whose dwelling was 
in the light of setting suns, He, too, was hemmed in by 
inexorable material conditions ; that He was deaf to 
entreaty, insensible to pain ; and that even if He were 
not, He could no more hearken to the passionate prayer 
wrung from souls that sorrow has made desolate than Baal 
and Astoroth, the dumb idols to whom of yore rebellious 
Israel knelt. It weakened where it did not destroy. It 
dimmed the lustre and soiled the freshness of belief in 
many who never outwardly separated from the Church. Its 
exponents captured the public by the press ; its professors 
caught the student in the lecture-room. It inspired and 
coloured the literature of an epoch : every magazine was 
simply teeming with its germs, and became a centre of 
infection. Though there was essentially but one article 
in its Credo, it had amongst the reading public far more 
subscribers than the Thirty-nine Articles or the Confession 
of Augsburg; and the educated world rejoiced and found 
itself Agnostic. 

The plausibility of the objection that we cannot know 
whether any event is miraculous because it may have been 
produced by any one of the many natural laws of which 
we are confessedly ignorant, has been frankly admitted by 
Catholic theologians. In refuting it they have generally 
examined it in itself, as it is enunciated in an independent 

* Joel i. 4. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



proposition. As is well known, they grant that we 
cannot know all the laws of nature positively ; that is, 
that we have not that definite precision of knowledge 
which would enable us to give chapter and verse before 
the British Association for each and every one of the well- 
nigh infinite number of natural laws. But they deny that 
such accuracy is required; insisting that it is enough to 
know them negatively ; that is, that if we are ignorant of 
what they can do, we know right well what they cannot do. 
But even with regard to this negative knowledge, applying 
it to a favourite example, can we be truly said to know, in 
the strict sense of the word, that a man by mere unaided 
natural force cannot move a mountain? If so, what are 
the various stages of the process ? what is the middle term 
of our syllogism ? Negative knowledge is still knowledge, 
be it ever so vague and indefinite. When we state that we 
have negative knowledge, that we know what an agent 
cannot do, does it not seem that we must necessarily have 
some idea of the extent of its powers, and that, so far at 
least, we implicitly assert that we have positive knowledge 
and know what it can do? Does it not then look like as if 
we were drawing the boundary line and, like Canute with 
the sea, bidding the forces of nature halt? And as the 
Jews of old asked our Saviour, the Agnostic may ask the 
Apologist : 1 By what authority dost thou those things? * 

If we turn from analysing this objection as it lies in our 
independent isolated proposition and endeavour to trace it 
to some philosophical system from which its author con- 
sciously or unconsciously may have derived it, what do we 
find? In the first place, we should naturally expect that 
this distinctively modem objection should originate in the 
philosophy that is distinctively modern, did such exist. 
Historians of philosophy tell us that by universal consent 
Descartes is revered as the father of modern philosophy. 
They are not insensible to the claims of the stupendous 
fabric built up with such power and erudition by the sages of 
the Fatherland. There can be little doubt, however, that it 
was Descartes’ Discourse on Method that set in motion the 
Btream of thought that reached high-water mark in Kant’s 

Digitized by LjOoq le 


Criticism . By the beginning of the seventeenth century the 
destructive influences of the Renaissance and the Reforma- 
tion were fully manifest. Everywhere, outside the Catholic 
schools — the dry bones of which, under the spirit of reform, 
came together in the fulness of a new and glorious life — 
speculation, though active, was in the highest degree 
unsettled and uncertain. For many minds the theory of 
life and knowledge that had grown up under the fostering 
care of the Church had been irreparably shattered, and as 
yet no adequate substitute bad been provided. Bereft of 
explanations that could satisfy, blown about by every wind 
of doctrine, men eagerly longed for some scheme which 
would catch up and organise all their manifold opinions. 

And so the era of reconstruction began. The mind of 
Descartes was completely permeated by this spirit. In the 
formation of his character it was more potent than the 
influence of the traditional philosophy that reigned in the 
great Jesuit college of La Fleche, where he was educated. 
Though he had there the best masters in the world, he left 
school despising their methods, and deliberately set about 
forgetting whatever they had taught him, excepting only 
mathematics, of which he was passionately fond. The 
anarchy that tore the schools, the fundamental differences 
of philosophers, destroyed at once his faith in their authority 
and in their ability to solve the problems to which they 
addressed themselves. Looking over the entire field of 
knowledge he saw almost everywhere at work the canker of 
scepticism. As it was in the present, so it had been in the 
past, even in the far away days when Plato meditated on 
immortality in the shades of the Academy, and Socrates 
buttonholed the gilded youth of Athens. In his review of 
more than twenty centuries of philosophical activity he saw 
generation after generation chasing the same old shadows, 
slaying the same old foes, and following the same impotent 
old routine. In the face of such results he not unnaturally 
concluded that nothing could be gained by the old methods; 
they had been tried and found wanting ; and if no better 
could be discovered, then, indeed, was philosophy a foolish- 
ness. Could any better be found ? That was the question. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



We have seen that at school he was devoted to mathematics, 
and that when on graduating he pitched to the winds all the 
riches of his knowledge, mathematics was, like Pandora’s 
gift, the only treasure he retained. Again, in his examina- 
tion of the state of philosophy, he saw that mathematics 
was the one exception to the law of uncertainty that was 
otherwise universal. This phenomenon set him a-thinking. 
What distinguished mathematics from every other branch 
of learning ? What gave mathematical conclusions their 
special simplicity and certainty? Was it not the peculiar 
method employed by mathematicians — that method of 
deduction by which each proposition is rigorously demon- 
strated, and by which truth succeeds truth in inevitable 
sequence? So reasoned Descartes, and he determined, in 
case he ever found a base of operations, to apply to the 
problems of metaphysics and of philosophy generally the 
methods of mathematics. This base be found in conscious- 
ness. Doubting of all things, he could not doubt his own 
existence, because in the very fact of doubting, existence 
was revealed by consciousness. Hence his celebrated Cogito 
— 4 1 think, therefore, I am.’ Consciousness, then, was the 
starting point of his philosophy. Its answers to his inter- 
rogations were borne in upon him with a clearness and 
power that necessitated assent. It thus became the basis 
of certitude. No proposition could win assent except it 
shared more or less in the essential qualities that made the 
verdict of consciousness irresistible ; that is to say, except 
it was either a self-evident proposition or one evidently 
connected with such self-evident proposition. Evidence, 
then, is the motto of Cartesianism. Forgetting that the 
proposition 4 Whatever is evident is true/ does not admit of 
simple conversion to the proposition, 4 Whatever is true is 
evident/ Cartesianism made evidence the sole criterion of 
truth, and by it alone determined what must be accepted or 

Nothing 1 can be admitted in science but what is evident, i.e ., 
nothing but what is so clear and plain as to leave no possible 

Levy-Bruhl, he. eit . 12. 

Digitized by LjOoq le 


doubt ; or is soundly deduced from principles which rest on such 
evidence. The whole system of scholasticism — metaphysics, 
logic, physics — thus stands irretrievably condemned in toto. Tho 
so-called moral sciences, which cannot attain to a degree of cer- 
tainty comparable to that of mathematics, and which have to 
content themselves with more or less strong probability, are like- 
wise rejected by the Cartesian formula. 

This formula, consequently, leads to the destruction of 
moral certitude, and admits only the exact sciences in which 
demonstration is attainable. Descartes wished to limit the 
sphere of his method to problems purely philosophical ; and 
expressly desired to exclude religion and politics. But the 
human spirit would not be denied, and insisted on testing 
by the light of evidence and the method of mathematics 
the most ancient institutions and the most sacred beliefs. 
From thiB method originated the philosophy which made the 
French Revolution possible. Indeed, philosophical activity 
ever since has been to a great extent absorbed in applying 
to every department of knowledge this method which makes 
evidence the test of truth and rejects everything incapable 
of empirical verification. Such a method is obviously incom- 
patible with sound Catholic teaching. It is, to say the least 
of it; inadequate ; it excludes some of our most cherished 
convictions; and it makes no provision for truths about 
which we have not the slightest doubt, but whose 
certitude is moral, not mathematical. Any proposition, 
consequently, which is infected with the essential viciousness 
of this system, which involves the application of the mathe- 
matical method to questions in which the subject-matter 
does not permit it, is necessarily condemned, finding its 
death warrant in that time-honoured principle — Innititur 
j also fundamento. 

Now, Hume’s objection to the philosophical truth of 
miracles is nothing more or less than an utterly unjustifi- 
able attempt to test moral sciences by what are practically 
mathematical criteria, to apply the Cartesian method to 
the evidences for Christianity. During the century following 
the death of Descartes his teaching obtained great and 
widespread influence. In France, partly because of its 
affinity with the logical temperament of the nation, and 

Digitized by t^OOQle 



partly because of its value as a destructive agent in the 
war against the Church, it won its greatest triumphs and 
gained its chief adherents ; and so for once a philosopher 
was not without honour in his own country. Such a 
system, defiant of all tradition, enthroned in the high 
places of intellectual power, inculcated with passionate 
energy and with the very perfection of literary ability, 
appealing at once to the most diverse and the most potent 
emotions of our complex nature, is eminently calculated to 
throw an irresistible spell over students young and sympa- 
thetic. So when Hume, a mere boy of twenty-three, and 
already predisposed, crossed over to France to pursue his 
philosophical studies, it is no wonder, even though he spent 
the greater part of his three years’ stay at La Fleche,the great 
Jesuit college where Descartes had been educated, that he fell 
a victim to its fascinations. Even if his line of attack may 
have been proximately suggested by Tillotson’s argument 
against Transubstantiation, because of the preponderance 
of the direct evidence of the senses over the indirect 
authority of the testimony of the Apostles, there can be 
no doubt that in its essence his method was one with that 
of Descartes. Both required for certitude evidence' that 
necessitated assent and excluded even unreasonable doubt. 
It was this question of evidence that united these two men 
whose habits of thought were entirely different, and became 
the point of contact and harmony between the mathematical 
and empirical methods ; for of both methods the note 
is demonstration. This 'will become more apparent when 
we remember that the Essay on Miracles first appeared in 
the Inquiry , which was no more than an abridgment for 
popular use of bis first work, composed during his early 
years in France, which was entitled Treatise on Human 
Nature , being an attempt to introduce the Experimental 
Method of Reasoning to Moral Subjects . This sub-title 
comprises within itself the essential features of Hume’s 
philosophy in so far as it affected evidence, and furnishes a 
clue that will safely guide us through the tortuous labyrinth 
of his objection. This experimental method, the method 
in which the various stages of the process inevitably follow 

Digitized by t^ooQle 


each other, the method whose inexorable logic leads to 
conclusions so irresistible in their evidence as to preclude 
even unreasonable doubt, this is the method which is to test 
the claims of our Saviour, and which, if it find Him wanting, 
will unhesitatingly depose Him from His throne in the 
conscience of mankind and divide His kingdom between the 
Materialist and the Agnostic. There is little necessity to 
point out that for the application of this method to Christian 
evidences or to any of the moral sciences there is not the 
shadow of justification. The conditions for its exercise are 
entirely wanting. Method in every form of inquiry is 
determined by subject-matter. If subject-matter permit, 
then by all means employ the experimental method and be 
content with no other. But if subject-matter will not 
permit, then the certitude which we seek must be attained 
by a method different but more appropriate. 

Speaking of the variations which are found in the logical 
perfection of proof in various subject matters, Aristotle says, 
• A well-educated man will expect exactness in every class of 
subject according as the nature of the thing admits; for it is 
much the same mistake to put up with a mathematician using 
probabilities, and to require demonstration in an orator/ 1 

And again : — 

I follow him in holding that since a Good Providence watches 
over us, He blesses such means of argument as it has pleased 
Him to give us, in the nature of man and of the world, if we use 
them duly for those ends for which He has given them ; and 
that as in mathematics we are justified hy the dictate of nature 
in witholding our assent from a conclusion of which we have not 
yet a strict logical demonstration, so by a like dictate we are not 
justified, in the case of concrete reasoning and especially of 
religious enquiry, in waiting till such logical demonstration is 
ours, but on the contrary are bound in conscience to seek truth 
and to look for certainty by modes of proof, which, when reduced 
to the shape of formal propositions, fail to satisfy the severe 
requisitions of science . 2 

Now, tlie force of the objection lies in this, that, because 
we do not happen to have explicit knowledge of each and 
every law of nature, we can never be certain that there has 

1 Grammar of Assent, p. 414. 

2 Ibid., p. 411. 

Digitized by AjOoq Le 



been a miracle ; inasmuch as some law of whose existence 
or of whose power we are ignorant may have been in opera- 
tion as the cause of this wonderful .event which we are 
pleased to attribute to a special act of Almighty God and to 
call miracle. According to this teaching, we should have 
such skill in reading the book of nature as to he able to 
catalogue and tell the contents of every single law; we 
should actually exhaust the entire list of the infinitely 
possible but inadequate explanations ; in our analysis of the 
supposed miracle we should eliminate every natural agent 
and finally come to a residue which is incapable of further 
resolution and refuses to be categorised as a new element, 
and which, consequently, must be the result of some un- 
wonted personal action before we are justified in saying that 
the finger of God is here. In a word, to assert that any 
event is miraculous is unwarranted and immoral unless we 
can demonstrate it ; unless we can prove it in the same way 
and have the same certitude about it as we have that 
( x + y) 1 = x 1 + < lxy + y % , or that water is produced by a certain 
combination of hydrogen and oxygen. But this is an 
entirely illegitimate proceeding. It exacts altogether too 
much proof. It requires for the establishment of a miracle 
precisely that irresistible evidence which in their respective 
subject-matters the mathematical and empirical methods 
exact and supply. But these methods are inapplicable here. 
The mathematical method has for its proper subject neces- 
sary truth. The experimental method sways its sceptreover 
the united kingdoms of fixed quantities and invariable laws : 
realms whose constitution is determined : and whose units 
can neither make, nor modify, nor resist the forces in which 
they live, move, and have their being. It has no jurisdiction 
over free agents. Like a Viceroy whose authority ceases 
with the coming of the King, it ceases to operate whenever 
Will encroaches upon the territory it had hitherto exclu- 
sively governed. Natural phenomena are undoubtedly the 
subject-matter of the natural sciences : and their method is 
the experimental. But here we are dealing with no merely 
natural phenomenon. The very hypothesis of miracle sup- 
poses the possibility of these invariable sequences, which it 

Digitized by L^OOQle 


is the function of science to demonstrate, being interrupted 
by a personal cause. Humanly speaking, in so far as we 
may predicate anything of the Infinite, He is free, His 
special actions have no more the character of inevitableness 
than the actions of men whom He has created. His actions, 
on account of His infinite perfections, have not the lower 
qualities proper to the agents subject to the physical 
sciences; they are not blind, irresponsible, determined, 
automatic. Hence, any attempt to apply to His actions the 
experimental method must be at once rejected as based on 
an entirely false principle. To test the fact of revelation by 
experimental criteria, or to insist that the works wrought in 
the excess of His love for His children who suffer and sin 
should conform to the laws by which lightning travels or 
microbes breed disease, is blasphemous rather than absurd. 

This experimental method, which Hume would have us 
apply, while it is invaluable when the question is of the 
purely physical sciences, becomes most fallacious outside its 
proper and only sphere. Outside that sphere, in the moral 
sciences, nobody dreams of employing it except for impugning 
the credentials of Christianity. If we reflect a little on the 
moral sciences through which, although some of them have 
grown up only during the nineteenth century, so large apart 
of human knowledge is distributed we shall find a vast body 
of principles generally admitted as certain and which, never- 
theless, cannot be verified by the experimental method. In 
ethics and economics, in philology and sociology there are a 
number of propositions to which we all, believers and unbe- 
lievers, firmly assent, which would have to be excluded were 
this method made universal. Not merely in the moral 
sciences but even in those immediately subject to the experi- 
mental method, demonstration is sometimes far to seek. 
Many, if not all, of the Agnostics are exponents of some form 
or other of evolution. Now, it is open to considerable doubt, 
to say the least of it, if any of them would have the hardihood 
to assert, could we eliminate the momentum derived from 
certain prepossessions, from certain little psuedo-scientific 
superstitions which linger round the laboratory as incense 
does round the sacristy, that they have the same certitude 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



about it that they have about any particular demonstrable 
proposition in mathematics or physics. It is, indeed, very 
doubtful if any of them would state that even the cumulus 
of the proofs of evolution, the suggestions of paleontology, of 
embryology, of homology of structure, of rudimentary organs, 
and of all the rest, constitute that irresistible evidence, the 
evidence that excludes even unreasonable doubt, the evidence 
that compels assent — the evidence, in short, that they de- 
mand for miracle. Of course, they may argue that the 
convergence of five or six different lines of proof to a point 
antecedently suggested by philosophy as at least not improb- 
able and certainly not impossible, constitutes such evidence. 
Consequently, owing to our mental constitution, we cannot 
withhold assent from any proposition so fortified, and must 
place it in the same category as the fundamental propositions 
of algebra or chemistry. Unquestionably, we should do so 
in any particular instance were such the case. But directly 
and intrinsically such proof is probability — very high, perhaps, 
but still remaining within the species of probability — and 
capable of being transformed into the higher grade of cer- 
tainty only by the aid of reflex principles. 

Such is precisely the Catholic position with regard to 
miracles. We maintain that, if not in every individual 
case, at least in some, and this is especially true of the 
principal miracles to which Christianity is committed, we 
have at least that amouut of proof which in similar fields of 
inquiry can produce and actually does produce assent. 
Taking into account, just as would be done were we 
discussing theories of descent, every fact that can bear 
on the subject, we maintain that there is not indeed mathe- 
matical nor metaphysical evidence, but proof sufficient 
to make every reasonable man honestly and carefully 
inquiring certain that in these events the forces of nature 
have been overcome by the intervention of supernatural 
power. This will come home to us more strongly if we do 
not confine our attention to an isolated case, if we cease to 
consider it merely under the aspect of an interruption of 
the uniformity of nature, if, taking, as we ought to take, a 
more comprehensive view of things, we remember that the 

Digitized by L^ooQle 


Creator of those secondary causes, He, who called them 
into being and gives them whatever life and efficiency they 
possess, is at the same time our Eternal Father who must 
have for mankind infinite pity and love. The Agnostic may 
protest against the introduction of a God in whom he does 
not believe as practically begging the question. We cannot 
help his protest. This aspect of our argument is not the 
survival of the crude anthropomorphism of the savage, nor 
the obtrusion of the silly cant of the devotee. The existence 
of a God, personal, loving His creatures, enjoying and some- 
times exercising for their benefit the power of modifying 
the laws by which His Providence ordinarily proceeds, is 
a postulate of Bevelation and its criteria. Without it we 
cannot entertain miracle even as an hypothesis. It is our 
strongest and most convincing argument, the keystone of 
the arch of faith. This is a feature of the case entirely 
overlooked by our opponents. Observing merely natural 
phenomena, eliminating all thought of a Power by whom 
such phenomena are controlled, they conclude that there 
is a presumption, amounting almost to an antecedent 
certainty, against any departure from the accustomed 
sequences. Were there no Creator presiding over the world, 
were the world one huge piece of mechanism in which 
motion succeeds motion with automatic precision, were 
natural phenomena but the manifestation of a blind, natural 
force in an eternal process of evolution ; then, undoubtedly 
there would be an overwhelming probability against any 
6uch departure. But this conception is radically different 
from that which Christians entertain. We believe that in 
the beginning God created all things : that He made man to 
His image and likeness : that the firmament is His handi- 
work and that His glory the heavens declare. By such a 
thought the antecedent improbability of miracle is con- 
siderably diminished. 

The better to subvert the Catholic position, this 
invariability of natural laws, which is the very backbone of 
the objection, is sometimes held by a happy inconsistency 
not to be established at all. What right have we to assert 
the existence of our order of nature? Because we have 
seen a few times the sun rise and set and the tide ebb and 
VOL. x. h 

Digitized by CjOoq Le 



flow, does it follow that so it always was in the past and so 
it ever shall be in the future? Multiply the instances : to 
the personal experiences of the individual add the accu- 
mulated historical experiences of the race, is not the 
generalisation still wild, the induction still imperfect ? 
Insist on the uniformity of the past and infer the uniformity 
of the future. Is continuity a necessary inference? Are 
all our experiences, so many, yet how few, an infallible 
guarantee that in that future, whose term no man can fore* 
see, the same antecedents will have the same consequents, 
and that nature will roll on for ever without change or the 
shadow of vicissitude ? 

Not one of these events (c.g., that all men must die : that fire 

consumes tow) is more than probable Calling our after 

verified experience a ‘ law of nature ’ adds nothing to its value, 
nor in the slightest degree increases any probability that it will 
be verified again, which may arise out of the fact of its frequent 
verification. The day fly has better grounds for calling a 
thunderstorm supernatural, than has man, with his experience of 
an infinitesimal fraction of duration, to say that the most 
astonishing event than can be imagined is beyond the scope of 
natural causes. 1 

If there be no order of nature, there can be no departure 
from it and consequently no miracle. St. Thomas, as if 
anticipating this objection, defines miracle as Ejfectus qui 
divinities jit praeter ordinem consuetuvi naturae . He says 
nothing about laws of nature and their violation, and 
frames his terminology so cautiously that his order of 
nature need not necessarily mean, though, of course, it does 
mean, more than the invariable consequences of Hume. 
One of the most ridiculous aspects in the campaign against 
the Church is to see scientific men impugning the order of 
nature, in the demonstration of which their lives are passed. 
But they tell us that the order of nature is held by them 
merely provisionally, and that it cannot be demonstrated 
philosophically. The scholastics thought otherwise. They 
held that essence was the principle of activity, and, conse- 
quently, that in identical conditions essence would always 
manifest itself in the same fashion; or, in other words, that 
the note of its action would be uniformity. Without, 

1 Huxley, Ivc. cit. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 


therefore, being guilty of imperfect induction, and without 
having recourse to blind instinct, the uniformity of nature 
has been upheld by Catholics adhering to the principle 
operari sequitur esse . 

Summing up, then, we may say that the objection to the 
philosophical truth of miracles is based on a false principle — 
the application of the experimental method of reasoning to 
moral subjects. It demands altogether excessive evidence 
when it requires that miracles should be demonstrated ; 
that the arguments for the evidences of Christianity should 
be as irresistible as the proofs of geometry or natural 
philosophy. It owes its plausibility, in great part, to the 
&ct that generally it has been examined as an independent 
proposition, detached from the utterly unsound system of 
philosophy to which it belongs. It was swept along by the 
tide of the great triumphs of this method in the material 
sciences, during the nineteenth century, to an apparently 
impregnable position. The experimental method, then, 
enjoyed unquestioned power and claimed universal sway. 
It instituted a kind of materialistic lieign of Terror. Men 
were in a perfect fever of unrest, dreading that at any 
moment some new scientific audacity should rob them of 
the most cherished portions of their spiritual inheritance, 
or destroy their supernatural life altogether. Happily this 
despotism is passing away. The testimony of an Apostle 
is beginning to be recognised as at least equivalent to the 
dictum of a scientist ; disputants on things of the spirit are 
no longer referred, as to a court of ultimate appeal, to 
scientific discovery or to scientific pretensions. Outside its 
own sphere the experimental method is losing its authority, 
and Hume’s objection will disappear in its train. In this 
new century, when, as events seem to indicate, there will be 
a higher value placed on spirituality than there was in the old, 
when the test of conflicting religions will be their perfect 
adaptation to human nature, their capacity for satisfying the 
deep, permanent needs of the soul, the blatant, self-sufficient 
adherents of the experimental method, the men who had the 
sun of science at their backs, will be as much out of place as 
Gnostic visionaries or Pagans suckled in creeds outworn. 

Patrick F. Coaklky, o.s.a. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

[ ne ] 


I N the year 1870 the inhabitants of the city of Lyons 
found themselves threatened with the horrors of a siege. 
The tide of war which was then devastating some of the 
fairest provinces of France, rolled perilously near the gates 
of the ancient city ; destruction seemed inevitable. In this 
hour of mortal danger, the inhabitants had recourse to the 
Queen of Heaven who had so often in the past, extended 
her gracious protection to them. 

On the 8th of October, Monsigueur Ginoulhiac, kneeling 
at our Lady’s altar, in the old chapel at Fourviere, solemnly 
promised in the name of the priests and people of Lyons, 
that, if through the intercession of their great patroness 
the terrible danger with which they w 7 ere threatened was 
averted, that they would spare no effort to cause a new 
sanctuary to be erected at Fourviere, where from time 
immemorial a shrine of our Lady had existed. Their prayer 
was heard. 

On the 1st of March, 1871, the treaty of peace was 
signed. Neither the city nor diocese of Lyons suffered the 
slightest injury from the invaders. The magnificent basilica 
which dominates the city, testifies to the power of Mary’s 
intercession and to her children’s gratitude. 

The origin of the shrine is completely lost in the mists 
of antiquity, and no date can be accurately assigned to its 
foundation. One thing is certain that from the moment 
when the dawn of Christianity dispelled the darkness of 
Paganism, devotion to the Mother of God has ever been a 
characteristic of the people of Lyons. 

We read that Lyons, or Lugdunum, as it was called by 
the ancients, was founded in the year 43, B.C., by Munatius 
Plancus. So rapid was its growth, that in the reign of 
Augustus, it became the capital of the Roman province of 
Gaul, and possessed a senate, magistrates and an athenaeum. 
It was in Lugdunum that the four great roads, which 
traversed Gaul, met as in a centre. In A.D. 53, the city 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



was destroyed in one nigbt by fire. It was rebuilt by 
Nero, and later, it was enlarged and greatly embellished 
by the Emperor Trajan. In the fifth century Lyons 
had already become one of the chief cities of the kingdom 
of Burgundy, and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 
it rose to great wealth and importance. To escape the 
tyranny of the nobility in 1307, the inhabitants placed 
themselves under the protection of Philippe-le-Bel, who 
united the city to Prance. 

The first to sow the precious seed of devotion to the 
Queen of Heaven, destined to produce such a rich harvest, 
was St. Pothin, the first bishop of the Gauls. It might 
almost .be said that the precious gift was bestowed directly 
by St. John the Evangelist, who received Mary as his mother 
from the dying Saviour, for St. Polycarp, the successor to 
St. John in the diocese of Smyrna, transmitted it direct to 
St. Pothin. 

But it was not on the heights whence the gods of Pagan 
Rome seemed to dominate the two great rivers which joined 
their waters in the valley beneath that the flower of devotion 
to Mary was first planted. The infant church, with Mary’s 
worship, must hide amongst ihe rushes of the marshy river 
banks. The summit and slopes of the hill, from Saint Just 
to Pierre-Scize were covered by the proud temples and 
palaces of the Romans, lifting their majestic heads to heaven. 
St. Pothin seeking a place whereon to erect the standard of 
the Cross, passed over the abode of human greatness and 
grandeur, and chose a lonely and unfrequented spot. Just 
before joining their waters, the two convergent lilies of the 
Rhone and Saone formed a triangle, the base of which was 
formed by the hill, known at the present time by the name 
of La Croix Rousse. 

This was the place chosen by Rfc. Pothin whereon to 
found his Christian colony. Here, amidst the fogs and 
mists which enveloped those desolate marshes, the first 
Christians of Lyons practised their religion in lowliness and 
obscurity. Yonder, directly facing them, rose the eminence 
on which the proud Roman city was seated in regal beauty. 

The humble followers of ChriBt crucified had the 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



stronghold of Paganism ever before them, in its power and 
magnificence, seemingly indestructible. And yet it would 
seem as if some prophetic instinct had guided St. Pothin in 
his choice. Before very long, many causes were to combine 
for the removal of that centre of life and action which had 
its home upon the height. By degrees, as Christianity 
triumphed, the attraction of the Cross was to draw Lugdunum 
down into the plain, and to gather round the sanctuary 
founded by St. Pothin, all the inhabitants of the Christian 
colony, just as the temples and monuments of Paganism 
were grouped around the Forum of Trajan. Consequently, 
one by one, the glories of the Pagan city would depart, whilst 
on the ruins of the forum Mary’s sanctuary was to arise. 

Thus once more was Mary Immaculate to crush the 
serpent’s head, and from the hill of Fourviere, so long the 
stronghold of Paganism, the Queen of Purity watches over 
the new Lyons nestling at her feet. 

Like all the saints, and like his beloved master, 
St. Polycarp, in particular, St. Pothin cherished the most 
tender love for our Lady, and he laboured unceasingly to 
enkindle the same ardent love and devotion in the hearts 
of the Christians of Lugdunum. 

In a Bull of Pope Innocent IV. it is stated that the altar 
dedicated to our Lady by St. Pothin was the first raised in 
her honour on this side of the Alps. It would be impossible 
to doubt the evidence of a Pope so renowned for his learn- 
ing, and who, moreover, had such abundant opportunity, 
during long residence in the city, of becoming acquainted 
with the traditions of the church of Lyons. 

The soil was fruitful, and the Gospel of Christ spread 
rapidly in Lugdunum. Soon the marvellous progress of 
Christianity attracted notice. The Christians, warned by 
the storm of persecution which had burst in Rome and 
Smyrna, in which latter city St. Polycarp bad suffered 
martyrdom, held themselves in readiness for the moment 
when they too would be called on to witness for Christ. 

However, the Christian warriors who stood ready for 
the combat were not molested. The danger seemed to have 
passed away. Not until 177, nine years after the death of 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



St. Poly carp, did the thunderbolt fall on the Christians of 
Lyons. Several were at once thrown into prison. The 
venerable shepherd of the flock, St. Pothin, soon shared 
their captivity. They were tried publicly in the Forum of 
Trajan. A short distance from the forum, on the eastern 
side of the hill, rose the palace of the Caesars. Here, Jn the 
underground dungeons of this palace, the first martyrs of 
Lyons were imprisoned, and here St. Pothin, with several of 
his companions, succumbed to their cruel suffering. At the 
Hospice of Autiquaille may be seen the gloomy dungeon, 
now converted into a chapel, in which St. Pothin, at the 
age of ninety, after enduring unheard of torture, breathed 
forth his soul to God. 

The blood of the martyrs is ever fruitful. The religion of 
Christ, which was then so persecuted, has triumphed over her 
enemies. That palace, in the erection of which the Romans 
spared no expense, that magnificent abode, whence issued 
those bloody edicts against Christ’s members : what now 
remains of all its splendour? A reservoir and a conduit 
which leads from this reservoir to the aqueduct : that is all. 
The palace of the Caesars has vanished from off the face of 
the earth, while the dismal dungeon, in which the first 
bishop of Lyons expired, remains intact. The 2nd of June 
is regarded as the day on which the martyr-bishop received 
his crown. 

St. Pothin was succeeded in the See of Lyons by 
St. Irenaeus, who faithfully followed in the footsteps of his 
saintly predecessor, imitating him in his love for Mary and 
in his ardent zeal for the propagation of her worship. 
Twenty years after the death of St. Pothin, Irenaeus, too, 
sealed his faith with his blood. During these persecutions 
thousands of all ages, and of both sexes, laid down their 
lives for Christ. Christian blood flowed in torrents, con- 
secrating for all time the hill of Fourviere. But the God 
of Justice avenged the death of His saints. The proud 
Roman city was doomed to destruction. The gorgeous 
temples crumbled into dust, and when the last and most 
famous of all — the Forum of Trajan — lay prostrate, the 
Chapel of Fourviere rose upon its ruins. 

Digitized by 




The little colony founded by St. Pothin grew and 
prospered in the shadow of Mary's altar, which he had 
consecrated. The remains of this first oratory are still 
preserved for the veneration of the faithful in the crypt, 
recently restored, of the church of St. Nizier. The pagan 
city, destroyed by the persecutors themselves, was destined 
to have a new and Christian birth in the plain at the foot of 
the hill, which had been the ae&t of its pagan splendour. 
Septimus Severus reduced the city to a heap of ashes, after 
which the imperial palace was never rebuilt. In 357, and 
again in 413, Lyons was seized by the Germans and the 
Burgundians, who, in the fifth century, became masters 
of the city. In 732 the Saracens completed the work of 
destruction, and in 840 the remains of the majestic porticoes, 
which had hitherto defied the efforts of the destroyers, 
suddenly fell to the ground. 

We read the following in a portion still remaining, of 
a manuscript written by St. Benignus of Dijon : 1 In that 
year, the famous monument called Forum vetus, built by 
Trajan in Lugdunura, fell in the beginning of Autumn after 
having lasted seven hundred years.' These ruins were called 
by the people the old Forum or Ford vetere, which then 
became Forverium, Forviel, and finally in the sixteenth 
century the place became known as Forviere or Fourvi&re. 

The chroniclers of Lyons agree in fixing the ninth 
century as the date of the construction of our Lady's 
Chapel. Pieces of marble and stones belonging to the 
Boman buildings are still to be found in the foundations, 
but this early shrine was a very humble effort. A very 
small enclosure, an altar built into the wall facing the East, 
and a door opening to the North, such was the simple plan 
of this primitive sanctuary. But, although the exact date 
ot its origin is wrapped in obscurity, it is impossible to 
doubt that the shrine is of great antiquity. Abundant proof 
of this is to be found in the charter of the foundation of the 
collegiate church, written in 1192. 

Our Lady of Good Counsel was the title under which 
our Lady was at first honoured on the hill of Fourviere. 
Some chaplains were appointed for the service of the altar. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



and vines were cultivated to defray the expenses. For 
three centuries the shrine remained humble and unpreten- 
tious. Numerous other shrines of greater renown attracted 
the devotion of the people of Lyons, who in their love and 
gratitude multiplied Mary’s altars everywhere. The most 
celebrated of those were the crypt of St. Pothin, Notre 
Dame des Graces a Tile Barbe, and the basilica of Ainay, 
which last can boast the happy privilege of being the first 
place in Gaul where the Immaculate Conception was 

But the chapel of Fourviere was destined to emerge 
from its poverty and insignificance. The hill which the 
blood of martyrs had sanctified formed the first patrimony 
of the arch-diocese of Lyons, it being recorded in the 
Archives that the Emperor Lothaire, in 850, bestowed it 
upon the Church. Olivier de Chavannes, Canon of the 
Chapter of Lyons, conceived the desire of enlarging the 
humble oratory. Accordinly, in 1168, we find him begin- 
ning to build a long nave which was to be dedicated later 
to St. Thomas of Canterbury. 

Regarding this dedication there is an old tradition which 
is mentioned repeatedly in the Archives of the Chapter. 
When St. Thomas a Becket quitted England at the com- 
mand of the tyrannical Henry,, he took refuge in the 
monastery of Pontigny, of which Guichard was abbot. 
Shortly afterwards, Guichard was raised to the See of Lyons, 
and persuaded the exiled archbishop to accompany him 
thither, and to take up his abode in the cloister of St. Jean 
where the Chapter had generously offered him an asylum. 
The tradition relates that Thomas a Becket, Archbishop 
Guichard, and Olivier de Chavannes were, one day, walking 
together. The conversation turned on the building then in 
course of construction at Fourviere. The exile raised his 
eyes and fixed them on the bill. 1 Who will be the Patron 
of the new Cathedral?’ he asked, turning to his hosts. 
‘ The first martyr who sheds his blood in defence of the 
Church,’ was the answer. Was it some prophetic instinct 
as to the fate of the illustrious guest which induced this 
answer ? If so, its verification was not long delayed. Very 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



shortly, all Europe thrilled* with horror to hear of the 
murder of the saintly archbishop, at the foot of the altar, 
in the very shadow of the sanctuary. The miracles worked 
at the martyr’s tomb ; the marvellous sanctity of his life, 
Henry’s remorse and penitence ; all combined to hasten the 
decision of the Church. In 1173 the supreme Pontiff 
declared Thomas a Becket Blessed. 

Faithful to their promise, Guichard and Olivier dedicated 
the nave which was just finished to the sainted archbishop. 
Our Lady of Fourviere was pleased to permit that hence- 
forth the name of him who from infancy had been the object 
of her maternal care, should be associated with her own 
sweet Name — her faithful son whose last words when struck 
by the assassin’s dagger had been * I recommend my rouI 
and the cause of the Church to God and to Mary.’ 

Devotion to the martyr spread rapidly. Ex-voto offerings 
multiplied, amongst the first being one from Louis VII., in 
gratitude for the recovery of his son from a dangerous fever 
which had brought him to the gates of death. 

Jean de Bellesme, who succeeded Archbishop Guichard, 
completed the work of the latter by erecting a collegiate 
church at Fourviere. The Provost of the Chapter of 
St. Jean was also Provost of Fourviere. On great festivals, 
the clergy of Fourviere were always present at the cere- 
monies in the cathedral. In turn, the chapter ascended to 
the sanctuary, on the 29th December, to assist at the 
celebration of the feast of St. Thomas a Becket. 

In an old charter of 12G3, bearing the signature of 
Philip of Savoy, then Archbishop of Lyons, we find mention 
of inumerable rich offerings to the shrine at Fourviere. 
The devoted clients of Mary, in the fulness of their grati- 
tude for her intercession, laid upon her altar the most costly 
offerings. Vessels of gold for the use of the sanctuary, rich 
stuffs, precious jewels ; all were brought to our Lady’s feet. 

In 1244, Pope Innocent IV. sought refuge in Lyons 
from the continued persecution of the Emperor Frederic. 
For six years the exiled Pontiff found an asylum amongst 
the faithful at Lyons. It was at the council convoked by 
this Pope, during his stay in the latter city, that an octave 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



was decreed to the Feast of our Lady's Nativity. By order 
of the Pope, the feast was celebrated for the first time at 
Lyons, with the greatest magnificence. Thus the inhabi- 
tants can claim for their ancient city the privilege of being 
the first place in Gaul where the feast of Mary's birth was 
celebrated, just as it was at the shrine of Ainay, that her 
immaculate conception was first honoured. 

Innocent IV., in various Bulls, repeatedly acknowledges 
the generous hospitality which he received from the people 
of Lyons, and be testified his grateful recognition of their 
devoted loyalty by conferring upon them inumerable favonrs. 

In 1336, Philippe-le-Bel formally confirmed the magis- 
trates of Lyons in their office, and bestowed upon them 
great privileges. Those officials, whose duty it was to 
administer the affairs of the city and to provide for its 
defence, desired by public act to acknowledge our Lady as 
their suzerain, and to render her their homage. One of 
the city gates was at Fourviere, and they gave the keys of 
this gate into the hands of the chapter, only reserving the 
right to appoint the sentinel, who from an elevated tower 
kept vigilant watch. It was also the duty of this sentinel 
to open and close the gate at Fourviere, and he it was who 
sounded the reveille, and rang the curfew for the citizens. 
At eight o’clock in the evening, one of the bells at St. Jean 
tolled twice ; then the bells of the cathedral and of St.Nizier 
pealed fourth during a quarter of an hour, at the end of 
which the sentry on guard at Fourviere blew a loud blast 
on his trumpet ; this was the signal to all that the. city 
was closed for the night. 

In the thirteenth century Lyons was a prey to the 
horrors of civil war. Fourviere suffered considerably from 
the efforts of the rival combatants to seize a place of such 
great strategical importance. The arrival of Pope Gregory X. 
in Lyons at last put a stop to the struggle. The Pope 
ordered the citizens to pay seven thousand pounds to the 
monasteries of St. John and Fourviere, in compensation 
for the damages inflicted during the conflict. Gregory 
convoked a council in 1274, at Lyons, to celebrate the 
reunion with the Greek Church. During this council the holy 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



Cardinal Bonavenfcure died. The sixteenth century proved a 
period of mourning for the Church. Heresy, led by Luther, 
the apostate monk, reared its hydra head in the greater part 
of Europe. France did not escape the pestilential invasion. 
Our Lady’s city was too near Geneva, the very centre of 
religious dissension, not to be disturbed. The fanatical 
hatred of the so-called reformers displayed itself in its most 
violent form at Lyons. In 1551, sacrilegious hands forced 
open the tabernacle in the church at Fourviere, and carried 
off the Blessed Sacrament, together with the sacred vessels. 
This was but the beginning of the abomination of desolation 
which swept over Lyons. In April, 1562, the Comte de Sault, 
governor of the city, either through weakness or treachery, 
delivered the city into the hands of the reformers. All the 
churches were pillaged ; many of them were utterly 
destroyed, among the number being the ancient basilica 
of St. Irenaous. The church at Fourviere was the first to be 
destroyed, the walls alone being left standing. The church 
of St. Just, which the passage of a thousand years had left 
uninjured, was also levelled to the ground. 

In 1563, order having been restored, the exiles returned 
to their beloved sanctuary, or rather to the hallowed spot 
where it had once stood. It was a sad home-coming. All 
was ruin and desolation. No part of the shrine had escaped 
the destroyer’s vengeance. Even the bells had been melted 
for the construction of cannons. 

For ten years Fourviere was left destitute of church or 
chapel. The chapter of the cathedral, which had suffered 
terribly at the despoiler’s hands, had no means to help their 
brethren at Fourviere. By degrees, however, the cburcb 
was roofed ; the belfry restored, and the altar of our Lady 
re-erected. The restoration of the sanctuary caused 
universal joy. The people flocked in daily increasing crowds 
to the altar of their dear patroness. As many as twenty-five 
Masses were said daily at the shrine, and the offerings 
became more numerous and costly than ever. But days of 
terrible calamity were in store for the people of Lyons. 

In 1628, the plague, which had on several previous 
occasions nearly decimated the city, re-appeared with more 

Digitized by AjOOQle 



appalling violence than ever. In fifteen days ten thousand 
people perished. The members of the various religious 
orders worked with the most heroic devotion and self- 
sacrifice ; tending the dying, burying the dead, and* 
endeavouring to calm the panic-stricken. 

Meanwhile the plague increased to such an extent that it 
was calculated that three hundred persons died in the space 
of an hour. Prayers # and supplications were offered 
unceasingly that God might have mercy on the stricken 
city. The magistrates deputed two friars to carry a silver 
lamp to the shrine of Loretto. It was with difficulty that 
the religious accomplished their pilgrimage owing to the 
terror inspired by their presence everywhere, on their 
journey. At the end of eight months the awful visitation 
ceased. It was calculated that thirty-five thousand persons 
perished, including seventy-two doctors. 

The mourning city turned its ’tear-dimmed eyes to our 
Lady of Fourviere. The crowds which thronged to the 
shrine became so great that in 1630 another door had to be 
made, which was afterwards walled up when the chapel was 
enlarged. As late as 1838, the position of the door was 
plainly visible, and the inscription over the arch ‘Notre 
Dame de Bon Conseil ’ could be easily deciphered. 

In 1643, Lyons was again visited by the plague. This 
time the outbreak was even more appalling in its ravages 
than the preceding one. In their dire extremity the people 
turned once more to our Lady of Fourviere. The magistrates 
of Lyons resolved in council to proceed in solemn procession 
to Fourviere and there, by public vow, consecrate their city 
for ever to the Mother of God. The text of this resolution 
is still preserved in the archives at the Hotel-de-Ville. The 
solemn consecration took place on the 8th September, 1643. 
Mary accepted the trust, the plague ceased, and never again 
appeared in Lyons. 

A beautiful white marble statue of our Lady was placed 
on the bridge crossing the Saone, bearing on the pedestal 
an inscription which recorded the gratitude of the people of 
Lyons to their great patroness for their deliverance from the 
awful scourge. This statue was seriously damaged by an 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



accident, and was taken nearly two hundred years ago to the 
church of the Hotel Dieu where it is still preserved in a 
niche above the altar in the rosary chapel. Another statue 
was erected on the Place dc Change at the same time, 
but the stone of which it was formed was too perishable to 
resist the ravages of the climate, and it had to be removed. 

In faithful fulfilment of the vow made in 1643, the 
magistrates of Lyons went every year to Fourviere. 
Amongst other offerings, they invariably presented a gold 
crown piece, as token of vassalage. This pious custom was 
only discontinued in 1789, when the first mutterings of the 
awful storm of bloodshed and godlessness, so soon to burst 
over France, was heard. 

Mary proved herself the faithful liege-lady of her devoted 
servants. Since the city was thus solemnly placed under 
her protection, no contagious epidemic has ravaged Lyons. 
The cholera which scourged the greater part of France, 
stayed its course several times almost at the very gates of 
our Lady’s city. Now, that the civic authorities no longer 
fulfil their sacred obligations two delegates from each of the 
thirty-six parishes of Lyons, proceed to Fourviere on the 
8th September annually, and kneel at our Lady*B altar, 
while the priest pronounces, in their name, the ancient act 
for consecration. 

Fourviere experienced the full force of the revolutionary 
storm. Sacrilegious hands despoiled the altars, and carried 
off all the rich offerings which for centuries had been laid at 
the shrine by the grateful clients of the Queen of Heaven. 
The chapel was then closed. It seems a special intervention 
of heaven that the sanctuary escaped destruction at the 
hands of Couthon and the baud of ruthless destroyers who 
left Lyons a heap of ruins. 

The chapter having refused to take the oath imposed by 
the impious legislators, were obliged to seek safety in exile. 
M. Groboz, vicar of Sainte Croix, was peremptorily ordered 
to leave Lyons on the 30th August, 1793. The good priest, 
unwilling to abandon the fold wherein were still to be found 
so many faithful souls, sought refuge on the hill of Fourviere; 
where he remained concealed for several months in the 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



house of two pious ladies. During this time he celebrated 
daily Mass and heard confessions in the bare and desolate 
sanctuary. One morning two commissioners presented 
themselves at the shrine, their errand being to make a valua- 
tion of the sacred vessels which still remained. M. Groboz 
calmly finished the Mass he was just saying, when thus 
disturbed. The emissaries of the Revolution then demanded 
the key of the Tabernacle that they might ascertain the 
weight of the Sacred Ciborium. The priest trembled with 
horror. He refused to comply. No hand should touch the 
sacred vessel until he had first removed the Holy of Holies. 
One of the miscreants swore a fearful oath that they would 
carryout their design without giving the priest time to effect 
the removal of the Blessed Sacrament. The sacrilegious 
wretch would have carried his threat into execution but for 
the intervention of his Protestant companion. M. Groboz 
was denounced to the Committee of Public Safety and was 
obliged to fly. 

In spite of threats and dangers, dauntless pilgrims still 
braved Ml to kneel in prayer at the gates of the deserted 
chapel, though by doing so they ventured into the jaws of 
death, for the neighbourhood of the shrine was carefully 
watched by infamous spies. 

During the darkest days oi the reign of terror faithful 
preists contrived to celebrate Mass in secret in the houses 
of the faithful, who joyfully opened their doors to give them 
shelter. Thus did pastors and people assemble in far more 
danger of their lives than were the early Christians in the 
Catacombs, and more than once both priests and people 
paid the forfeit of their blood for their faithfulness to God. 

The death of Robespierre in 1794 caused a slight lull in 
the storm. The chapel of Fourviere was re-opened, but, 
alas, only to suffer fresh profanations. On the 11th July, 
1796, it was sold for 4529,000 to a lady who devoted all her 
efforts to the establishment of the constitutional form of 
worship. The ancient statute of our Lady having dis- 
appeared, another was purchased and set up in its place, 
while two constitutional priests were appointed to the care 
of the chapel. Well might the faithful regret the days 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



when the chapel was closed, and the grass grew in the 
deserted sanctury. Far better so than to behold it in 
sacrilegious hands. But the love of Mary was too deeply 
rooted in the hearts of the people of Lyons to be destroyed 
by the fiercest persecution. 

In 1799 two priests, brothers, M.M. Caille, opened a 
school on their own estate, not far from Fourviere. The 
drawing-room of the mansion was converted into a chapel, 
where Mary’s faithful clients came to offer their Queen the 
worship which they were forbidden to offer at her ancient 
shrine. In 1803 the Abbe Fesch, Archdeacon of Ajaccio, 
and uncle of Napoleon, who had been appointed first consul, 
was consecrated Archbishop of Lyons. In 1804 Pope 
Pius VII. passed through Lyons on his way to Paris. He 
was received most enthusiastically by the faithful of Mary's 
city. They seized the opportunity to plead for the restora- 
tion of their liege-lady's chapel, which had, indeed, been 
rescued fram the hands of the schismatics, but which had 
not been yet re-opened from prudential motives. Cardinal 
Fesch and the clergy of Lyons were equally anxious for the 
restoration of Mary's sovereignty over the city. A subscrip- 
tion was opened. Money flowed in from all sides. The 
work of restoring the shrine was at once begun. To the 
great joy of all, the statue of our Lady, so long missing, 
was found uninjured beneath a heap of ruins. Some of 
the former canons of Fourviere testified to its authenticity. 
During the days of terror a pious gardener had contrived to 
carry away the sacred image, which he carefully concealed, 
thus saving it from destruction at the hands of the demons 
of the Revolution, and later from the profanation of schis- 
matical worshippers. 

On his return, in 1805, from Paris, Pius VII. halted a 
second time at Lyons. At Cardinal Fesch’s request, the 
venerable Pontiff, in person, performed the ceremony of 
re-opening the doors of the church at Fourviere, after which 
he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. An inscrip- 
tion, placed on the principal door of the church, recorded 
the re-opening of the shrine by the Sovereign Pontiff, and 

also the numerous indulgences wherewith it was enriched. 


Digitized by L^OOQle 



This inscription is now in the interior of the new chnrch. 
Pins VII. attributed his deliverance from captivity, and 
his safe return to the Eternal City, to the intercession of 
the Blessed Virgin, and to commemorate these favours he 
instituted the Feast of our Lady, Help of Christians, which 
is observed on the 24th May. 

During the revolution of 1830 the shrine narrowly 
escaped destruction from the firing of the insurgents’ 
cannon ; some parts of the church being struck by the 
balls, one of which penetrated the wall just below the 
niche wherein stood our Lady’s statue. In addition to the 
horrors of the insurrection, Lyons was threatened with 
another scourge. The dreaded cholera morbus once more 
invaded Europe, and had already attacked Paris. The 
second city of France trembled before the approach of the 
dread destroyer. Stringent sanitary measures were adopted, 
and every precaution taken to avert the threatened danger. 
But it was to the holy hill of Fourviere that the people 
turned their eyes, imploring of their Sovereign Lady that 
help which she had so often accorded them in the hour of 
danger. A public novena was begun at the altar of our 
Lady of Fourvi&re, at which it was calculated ten thousand 
persons assisted daily. Their confidence was not in vain, 
once more Mary spread the aegis of her protection over her 
loyal subjects, and the destroying angel passed by, not ventur- 
ing to enter the city shielded by the Queen of Heaven. 

In 1835, the pestilence re-appeared, ravaging the south 
of France and Piedmont, and advancing as far as Valence. 
Again, the people of Lyons poured forth their supplication 
at the shrine of Fourviere, and again the destroying angel 
sheathed his sword at the very gates of Mary’s city. A 
marble tablet, with the following inscription, records the 
gratitude of the people : — 

Lyons to our Lady of Fourviere in gratitude for having been 
preserved from the cholera in the years MDCCCXXXII and 

In 1838, the Sovereign Pontiff accorded to the church at 
Fourviere the same privileges as those bestowed by his 
predecessors upon the holy house of Loretto. A great and 
vOn. x. i 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



glorious privilege, and a striking testimony to the venera- 
tion felt for the ancient shrine by the head of the Chnrch. 
In 1839, the Confraternity of the Most Holy Heart of Mary 
was established in the chnrch at Fourvi&re, and was affili- 
ated to that already existing in the chnrch of Notre Dame 
des Yictoire at Paris. In 1839, during the month of 
November, the Bhone and the Saone overflowed their banks, 
causing great devastation in Lyons, many houses and 
several bridges collapsed, and for days locomotion was only 
possible in boats. There was but one refuge in those hours 
of dire calamity. The archbishop, the priests, and the 
people ascended the hill of Fourviere, and with fervent 
prayer invoked the aid of their Queen. At the intercession of 
Mary, God’s wrath was appeased. The angry floods rapidly 
subsided, and marvellous to relate, not more than two or 
three lost their lives. Again, the people of Lyons recorded 
their gratitude by a painting which was placed in our 
Lady’s chapel. In 1848, the people solemnly renewed the 
consecration of their city to the Blessed Virgin. 

On the 21st November, 1848, Cardinal de Bonald, at that 
time Archbishop of Lyons, having celebrated Mass in the 
Lady Chapel, at which the Chapter of Lyons, and an 
enormous crowd of the faithful assisted, read aloud at the 
foot of the altar the act consecrating the city to our Lady of 
Fourviere. In accordance with the ancient custom, repre- 
sentatives from all the parishes attended, each offering a 
gold piece and a wax candle. In the evening a solemn 
blessing was pronounced on the city from the top of the 
holy hill. This act of consecration is repeated annually 
on the 8th September, and in the evening the Blessed 
Sacrament is carried outside the church, and raised in 
solemn Benediction over the city. Beneath an enormous 
crowd gathers on the quays, and at the moment when 
the appointed signal announces the raising of the Blessed 
Sacrament all prostrate themselves in adoration. 

After twelve years absence, the cholera again appeared 
in France, and this time a few cases occurred in the military 
hospital. As before the people had recourse to Mary, who 
opce more came to the assistance of her subjects. The 

Digitized by 



progress of the plague was stayed and no further cases 

On the 8th December, 1852, the city of Lyons celebrated 
by general illuminations, on a scale of grandeur hitherto 
unprecedented, the placing of our Lady’s statue in the new 
tower which had been built and which dominated all the 
buildings by which it was surrounded. 

In 1870, danger and death once more threatened Lyons. 
The horrors of war were devastating the fair land of Franca 
Three times had a regiment of. the enemy received orders 
to march on Lyons, and three times did the foe pause and 
turn aside, as if some invisible hand had stayed their march. 
Then it was in the hour of the most imminent danger, 
that, as of old, the archbishop, the priests, and people 
gathered round the altar at Fourvi&re, and there bound 
themselves by solemn vow to erect a new sanctuary if the 
Most Immaculate Virgin would intercede to protect the 
city and diocese of Lyons from the hands of the enemy. 
The gracious Queen of Heaven accepted her children’s vow. 
The invading armies were stayed at the very gates of the 
city which, as we have seen, was not once molested during 
the whole course of the war. The magnificent basilica 
which to-day dominates "the city is a glorious proof of how 
nobly the people redeemed their vow. In all France there 
is no grander temple than that raised by the faithful of 
Lyons to the glory of God and to testify to all time their 
gratitude to God’s Immaculate Mother for the protection so 
signally accorded to their city. 

There is no* shrine in France held in higher veneration 
than that of Fourviere. From all parts pilgrims turn their 
steps to this favoured spot. The sick, the sorrowful, weary 
wayfarers on the thorny high-road of life, fainting beneath 
their load ; those who are starting forth on an untried 
career, filled with hope, all alike go to lay their griefs, their 
pains, their hopes and fears, at the feet of her who is the 
Sweet Mother of Mercy. And Mary is pleased by the 
wondrous favours she accords to manifest how pleasing to 
her is the homage which her children render to her at the 
ancient shrine of Fourviere. E Leahy. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 

[ 132 ] 


R ELIGION, says the Abbe de Broglie , 1 professes to 
answer the most momentous and the most anxious 
questions that can engage the attention of the human mind, 
and its answer, in one form or another, has been accepted 
and cherished by the human race. But your modern 4 scien- 
tist,’ as he calls himself, has little respect for the opinions of 
the human race. To be sure, he says, the human race 
believes in religion ; but then the human race is wrong. 
All men are fools ; all religion is a creed outworn, an 
hypothesis unnecessary for the understanding of the world, 
and hostile — nay, fatal — to all true progress. Yet this same 
omniscient individual reckoneth naught human as foreign to 
him ; so he asks himself : What is religion, and how is it 
that it has such a hold upon human nature ? What is the 
origin of this universal foolishness? How did man ever 
begin to believe in this unscientific superstition ? 

It is clear that a man who approaches the question in 
this frame of mind must be hopeftssly astray in his solution 
of it. To start with, he has no idea of what religion really 
is ; he is utterly unable to realise what it has been, what it 
has meant to all the noblest and wisest of men. Current 
definitions of religion, current accounts of its origin, falsely 
labelled scientific, make this abundantly plain to anyone ; 
and one need not know much of the metaphysical lunacies 
of Germany, or the reckless theorising of French and 
English materialists, to find it out. At every turnwe are 
confronted with the grossest misunderstandings and misre- 
presentations of obvious facts and principles ; and a believer 
in any form of religion would fail to recognise his beliefs 
and practices in the strange travesties that are dubbed 
scientific interpretation of them. It is the old story of the 
straw man valiantly overthrown by his maker. 

1 Probfcmes et Conclusion* dc l' Histoire de Religion. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



The most popular theory among those ‘ thinkers * is that 
which is identified with the names of Herbert Spencer, 
Tylor, Huxley, Tiele, etc. ; and it may be described, as the 
Abbe de Broglie describes it, under the title of Primitive 

According to this view primitive man must have had a 
rather primitive outlook upon the world. Poor fellow, he 
could know no better ; for his simian relatives had no school 
or university to send him to, and, indeed, he was not a 
promising scholar in any case. Yet withal was he a philo- 
sopher, and his first piece of philosophy was to look upon 
all things in nature as animated and having life, like 
himself. But what is life? To this problem our philo- 
sopher next applied himself, with no ordinary zeal and 
thirst for knowledge. Unlike his modern patrons he was 
much given to introspection. He observed that he slept 
and dreamt ; in his slumbers he wandered into dreamland ; 
he made the further brilliant discovery that men die, and 
that dead men do not breathe any more than they tell tales ; 
perhaps, he saw a ghost or two, who may have enlightened 
him about the next life. Reasoning upon such data he 
concluded that in man there is a something else besides the 
body, an alter ego, a spirit, a shade, a ghost. But external 
nature, too, is full of life; therefore, quoth he, it is full of 
spirits as well. This view of the world is called Animism, 
and, according to Spencer, Tylor, etc., it was the first form 
of religion ; and it is found, according to Huxley, Spencer, 
aud others, as the only religion of the lowest savages of our 
day. If a wise man, a magician, a brave warrior, or a stout 
hunter died, his ghost would hold a high place among 
ghosts ; such spirit would gain in reputation as years went 
by, they would become as gods and be worshipped as such 
by the primitive savage. After a while a hierarchy grew up 
among the gods, suggested, says Spencer, by social and 
political distinctions among men ; and the process would go 
on, not without infinite scuffle and dust among the gods, 
such as we read of in Greek mythology, till, at last, the best 
god came out on top and gradually elbowed out* all the 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



This theory seems to postulate the crudest form of 
Darwinism as its foundation ; and so far it stands condemned. 
Still it is not without resource ; for it is urged that evolution 
in some senseis an established fact all through nature and 
huinau history ; all things grow, improve, change for the 
better. Therefore, it is contended, even if the first man 
were no monkey’s son, his religion could not have been 
anything but crude and primitive. To which it can be 
obviously replied with Mr. Jevons 1 that evolution and 
progress are not synonymous terms. Evolution in any 
hypothesis is the successive changing of an organism so as 
to suit varying environments. But before you can show 
that the change in the organism was for the better you must 
show that the surroundings varied in such a way as to 
demand such continual improvement. Improvement in 
relation to surroundings may be a falling off from an 
absolute standard of perfection. To apply this to the 
history of religion, it is plain that a learned body of theolo- 
gians or scientists if they sojourned for a while in Zululand 
would have no chance against the native sorcerers and 
medicine men ; nor would their views prove the fittest to 
survive in Zulu schools of thought. Again, it is a simple 
fact of history that progress in any true sense of the word 
has always been the exception rather than the rule ; the 
progressive races are enormously outnumbered, even in our 
own times, by the conservative and retrograde. In what 
86nse, therefore, can positive science teach that mankind is 
on the whole improving? Is there accurate systematic 
proof of such improvement, or is it a mere assumption due 
to the self-complacency of comfortable scientists in their 
snug parlours, a figment of the scientific imagination con- 
templating an unproved theory in another narrow department 
of human knowledge ? How does it appear that all nature 
is growing to perfection and will ever grow till the scientific 
millenium is reached ? What about the final catastrophe to 
which all nature is hastening inexorably according to the 
teaching of an authoritative school of scientists ? 

1 Introduction to History of Religion. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



Again, it is not true that the growth of religion towards 
perfection must keep pace with the advance of material or 
worldly civilization. Indeed it is hard to understand what 
Agnostic scientists mean at all when they speak of improve- 
ment in religion. Religion, according to them, is an error, a 
disease. Surely the progress of a disease in its own proper 
nature, with its own natural tendency, should not be called 
improvements in any sense. Surely the best improvement, 
or rather the only improvement, is to eliminate it utterly from 
the system it preys upon. On the other hand, if religion 
be regarded as a truth, a healthy growth that has its roots 
deep in human nature, there is nothing to show that its 
progress will be aided directly by any advances that may be 
made in other departments of human activity. Macaulay 
Baid that all the data of natural religion were as fully within 
the grasp of the men of Homer’s time as of our own ; hence 
it would follow that in old times natural religion would 
already have reached its full perfection, provided men paid 
sufficient attention to it. How 'far there can be develop- 
ment in natural religion is a further question; but the only 
clear examples of true religious development are the cases 
of Judaism and Christianity, which are on a totally different 
plaue. And in this connection it is well to point out 
another of the question-begging fallacies of which agnostic 
writers are guilty. To show that religion is improved by 
science and by general worldly progress they point to the 
history of modern Europe ; whereas the truth is simply the 
converse of this, for Christianity, as a matter of fact, is the 
cause, and not the effect, of modern civilization. Yet 
another paradox awaits the inquirer into those dim regions. 
Science, we are told, of its own nature tends to root out 
and destroy all religion ; while on the other hand we are 
told that civilization, which is the work of science, is the 
sole cause of religious progress ! The oracles of Exeter 
Hall will go on proclaiming that England is wealthy because 
England is Godly ; but people who are not oracles will bear 
in mind the old story about Dives and Lazarus. 

Still Huxley would say, a fact cannot be argued away ; 
and it is a fact that races which are at the bottom of the 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



scale in general culture have likewise the lowest forms of 
religion. To which statement we reply, with Mr. Andrew 
Lang, 1 * that it is itself a crude contradiction of known fact. 
The various indigenous tribes of Australia, the African 
Bushmans, and the inhabitants of Terra-del-Fuego are 
admitted by all to be in the lowest state of barbarism ; 
yet among these very races some of the highest and 
purest religious notions can be found. Of course these 
savages are not without a ridiculous mythology any more 
than were the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Bomans ; 
still from this tangle of myth we can disengage the genuine 
belief in a primal eternal Being, who spoke to men in former 
times and gave them His law, and is still their Father and 
Friend, who is the author of all things and the invisible 
omniscient guardian of morality. Daromulum is the name 
for the Deity among the tribes of Australia, 4 He watches 
the youths from the sky, is prompt to punish by disease or 
death breach of His ordinances.’ 9 Mr. Lang learned his 
facts from men who observed them on the spot, like Palmer 
and Howitt ; and he concludes thus his review of Australian 
religions 3 : — 4 Many other authorities could be adduced for the 
religious sanction of morals in Australia. An all-knowing 
Being observes and rewards the conduct of men; He is 
named with reverence if named at all; His abode is the 
heavens ; He is the maker and Lord of things ; His lessons 
soften the heart.’ The African Bushmans have a god Cagu 
of whom they say : 4 Cagn made all things, and we pray to 
him thus : 44 0 Cagn ! O- Cagn ! are we not thy children ? 
Do you not see us hunger? Give us food.”* 4 In Terra- 
del-Fuego they believe in 4 a great man who is always 
roaming about the woods and mountains, who is certain 
of knowing every word and every action, who cannot be 
escaped, and who influences the world according to men’s 
conduct.’ 3 

Modern savages are put on a par with primitive man ; 
and the statement is that as modern savages have the lowest 
form of religion, the same must be true in the case of his 

1 Making of Religion. a Ibid , p. 193. * Ibid., p. 199. 

4 Orpen, apud Lang, ibid. * Fitzroy, apud Lang. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

THE origin of religion 


prehistoric prototype. Huxley’s assertion that the lowest 
savages are practically without religion cannot stand, as 
we have seen. On the other hand, at the very dawn of history, 
we find among all nations that have a history, religious 
notions as pure as those we have just been considering : this 
is abundantly proved by the Abbe de Broglie in reference 
to India, China, Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Phcenica, Greece, 
and Rome . 1 But the anthropologist view would tell 
us that such notions could not have been evolved so 

One method of eluding the force of this argument is to 
say that, after all, we know nothing about the condition of 
primitive prehistoric man ; that even modern savages are 
infinitely superior to him in all things. But if this con- 
sideration avails for one side it also avails for the other; if we 
cannot argue from modern Australians, the anthropologists 
have as small a right to argue from the godless Zulus. At 
all events, the clear lesson of known history is decidedly not 
what the anthropologists represent it to be, namely, a 
constant or even a moderately uniform growth from less 
perfect to more perfect forms of religion.* 

Herbert Spencer would say that tribes, such as the 
Australians, who possess a comparatively high form of 
religion, and are at the same time at the very bottom of the 
scale of general culture, must have degenerated from a 
former civilization. Of course there is no proof, not the 
slightest particle of evidence of such degeneration ; but let 
us grant it and see what is its significance as against the 
general theory of its authors. Here we have a tribe that 
fell from a high state of general culture without leaving any 
traces of their former greatness ; and yet they still cling to 
a high form of religion. Similarly, is it not conceivable that 
primitive man had a high form of religion even though he 
have left no traces of all round material culture ? 

Another answer is that those low savages were evan- 
gelized by superior races, and so were saved from the 
necessity of native development. This, too, is a mere 

1 De Broglie, Legge, Le Page Uenouf, etc. * Ibid . 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



hypothesis invoked in support of a hypothesis. There is 
absolutely no evidence for it. The religious doctrines in 
question were handed down in ancient hymns, were imparted 
to the initiated tribesmen in solemn mysteries to which 
strangers find it extremely difficult to gain admission . 1 
These savages, too, are shy, conservative, fiercely hostile to 
all foreign influences ; and, above all, their languages have 
been unknown till our own day. Surely it does not seem 
likely that they were taught by foreigners. 

An essential feature of the Animistic theory is this, that 
it supposes the Supreme Being to be always explicitly 
regarded as a spirit. Man, it is said, could never think of 
a Great Spirit unless he first have the idea of spirit in 
general; but all men regard God as the Supreme Spirit. 
Now this last assertion is not true . 2 The Supreme Being 
is not always regarded as a spirit. The Australians regard 
God as a magnified human being dwelling beyond the stars, 
the Fuegians believe in the great black man of the woods, 

. the Melanesians believe in beings who never died, and who 
are not ghosts in any sense, etc., and it is important to note 
that such races also believe in ghosts, and indeed often pay 
them a certain religious worship. On the other hand they 
insist that God existed before death entered into the world, 
before there were any ghosts at all. Even when the 
Supreme Beiug is regarded as the ancestor of a tribe, the 
idea is much the same as the pure Theistic notion that God 
is the Father of all men, our Father in Heaven, 

Thus there is no necessary connection in the savage 
mind between the idea of divinity and the idea of * ghost’ or 
‘ spirit.’ With regard to the process which the savage is 
supposed to have gone through in the formation of his 
notion of spirit, it is to be remarked that it was after all a 
metaphysical process of some difficulty ; and it may be 
suggested that there are other processes quite as well within 
• the reach of primitive faculties, I refer to certain rudimen- 
tary forms of the argument from Design, First Cause 
and Conscience which, according to theologians, are likely 

* 1 Lang, Making of Religion . 

9 Ibid, paeeiin. 

Digitized by kjOOQle 



to occur to the average intelligence. These processes may or 
may not be valid; but they are natural and simple and 
in fact all mythologies and all divine names contain them in 
one form or another. This would be an intelligible account 
of the origin of religion ; but it would represent Monotheism 
as primitive and also as having a real basis in reason and in 
human nature ; and neither representation would please the 

But the essential question of the whole inquiry is : How 
did man get his idea of God ? Before you can deify man or 
ghost or fetish, you must already have acquired this idea. 
‘ Lao-tze is god.* ‘ Odin is god/ In those propositions the 
predicate has to be accounted for : how did the knowledge 
of God come to the Chinaman and the Teuton? The 
Animistic theory gives no satisfactory answer to this 
question. Ghosts, it is said, became gods, just as men 
became chiefs and kings. But there are races who believe 
in God and have no chief or king. The Australian 
aborigines, for example, carefully keep down all social and 
political distinctions and are thoroughgoing communists and 
democrats. Again the notion of king, chief, warrior, are not 
religious notions at all ; they may help to illustrate and 
develope such notions already existing, but they cannot 
originate them. To every man who has ever had religion 
in the true sense religion has been a serious solemn thing, 
with a deep and a subtle hold upon all the fibres of his 
being, with a power to inspire, to console, to terrify. In all 
evolution there must be a continuum , a substratum that 
underlies all change. Now, what is the continuum , what is 
the common element between dread of spectres and 
religion? What is there in common between the Zulu 
pandemonium of greedy, hungry, immoral hobgoblins and 
the wise, mighty, kindly Father of the Australian tribes? 
By what conceivable process of development could a ghost 
become a god ? This question is not answered and cannot 
be answered in the Animistic theory. That theory cannot 
account for the central and essential idea of all religion. 
It derives no support from the actual facts of past or 
contemporary history. Its propounders fail to grasp the 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



meaning of religious notions, beliefs, and practices. It has 
established no one truth that is inconsistent with the 
old- fashioned view that in the beginning man was taught 
of God. The burden of proof all along the line rests 
with the novelty and the novelty has proved unable to 
sustain it. 

P. Forpe. 


W E have all heard of the rustic Englishman who came to 
London to see the Empire, the Roman Catholic 
Church, and the West End. It would be interesting to 
learn what impressions he received of Catholicism as the 
result of his descent on the great metropolis ; but the fact 
that he included the Catholic Church among the few things 
really worth seeing proves that in some vague way he regarded 
it as one of the wonders of the world. 

Among the many noteworthy tendencies manifested 
during the closing years of the nineteenth century perhaps 
no one was more unexpected in its development, or more 
far-reaching in its influence, than the interest displayed in 
everything that concerns the Catholic Church. It is not 
easy to trace the exact genesis of this feeling. Naturally the 
ever-widening extension of the Faith in this country has 
had something to do with it. Catholic churches and Catholic 
priests, monasteries of monks, friars, and nuns, have multi- 
plied almost miraculously during the last twenty years. As 
an immediate result of this, old prejudices are shaken if not 
wholly demolished. I shall not soon forget the excitement 
caused among the inhabitants of a little English town by 
the arrival in their midst of a small community of nuns. 
The good people failed to understand how the sisters could 
dwell in anything but a sombre building surrounded by high 
walls and cut off in some hopeless way from the outer 
world. The idea of nuns walking about the town in their* 
habit, and doing their shopping just like Mrs. Smith or 

Digitized by 




Miss Robinson, and equally alive to the urgency of obtaining 
full value for their money, literally dumbfounded them. 
What, however, was a nine days* wonder a few years ago, is 
now calmly accepted as one of the most natural things in the 
world. Needless to add the nuns are everywhere received 
with that deference and respect which even the humblest 
Englishman, be his faults what they may, entertains for 
everything of a religious character. Then, wherever a 
Catholic Church is established, even in remote country 
districts, the people like to attend the Sunday evening 
service and hear the Father preach. This must help to 
uproot a large amount of ignorance and bigotry. 

Another thing we must bear in mind is the marked 
increase in the number of people who travel nowadays, 
especially on the continent, compared with the number of 
tourists that left our shores annually, say fifteen years ago. 
Travelling facilities have increased ; the cost of transit has 
grown cheaper ; the material prosperity of our people has 
gone up by leaps and bounds; money was never more 
plentiful ; education is yearly spreading more and more, 
with the result that people grow anxious to see for them- 
selves the beauties of other lands of which they have read 
and thought so much. It is quite a usual thing now to see 
a long train steaming out of Charing Cross station at 9 p.m. 
in the summer months packed with artisans on their way 
to Switzerland, or the Italian lake country, on a nine days’ 
tour arranged for them by the London Polytechnic. Once 
on the continent your Anglican at once feels the attraction 
of the Catholic Church. I happen to know a professional 
man, an Anglican, who takes his month’s holiday every year 
on the continent. At home this man would never dream 
of crossing the threshold of a Catholic church. Such a 
thing is not even to be thought of. What would the vicar, 
and the vicar’s wife say ? Yet this man no sooner sets foot 
on foreign soil than he makes it a point to attend as many 
Catholic services and functions as possible. In fact I may 
say that he knows the history of every Cathedral in France 
and Germany, and the peculiar features, whether of archi- 
tecture or decoration, noticeable in each. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



‘ The writer of fiction who is ever on the watch for new 
and unexplored fields in which he may exercise his fancy is 
generally quick to notice any definite change in the public 
taste, and instantly sets about satisfying the latest fashion- 
able craving. All roads, we are told, lead to Borne ; and in 
or about Borne, Boman doctrine and practice, Catholic 
ideals, and types of Catholic character, have the minds of 
some of our leading writers of fiction been centred for some 
time past. In France we have men so dissimilar as Emile 
Zola and Huysmans both drawing their inspiration from 
the same source. In England the fascination of Borne is 
felt, not merely by Catholic writers of the stamp of Mrs. 
Craigie (John Oliver Hobbs), Dr. Barry, and Mr. Marion 
Crawford, but equally so by writers of such uneven quality 
a9 Bobert Buchanan, George Moore, Marie Corelli, and Hall 
Caine. I question seriously if the wheel of fortune ever 
presented us with a more curious portent than George 
Moore as the narrator, and to some extent the apologist, of 
the problems of convent life. 

Few contemporary writers of fiction have awakened a 
deeper interest in their handiwork than that very remark- 
able woman, Miss Marie Corelli. Some of her books, such 
as Barabbas and The Sorrows of Satan , not to mention 
Thelma and Boy , have in all probability been read and 
purchased more extensively than the combined works of any 
other three popular novelists of the day. Shop assistants, 
and other people dowered with a superabundance of false 
sentimentality, barmaids and nursery governesses, have long 
since pinned their faith to the products of Miss Corelli’s 
genius. In fact the ordinary critic who reads her books 
dispassionately is frequently at a loss to account for her 
undoubted influence over such a large and varied clientele . 
Like most other prominent novelists Miss Corelli has felt 
the attraction of Rome, and in her Master Christian she has 
put before the world her views as regards the Church, her 
pastors and her ministers, with a vehemence more easily 
imagined than described. It is evident that Miss Corelli 
had argued herself into the belief that the disturbances and 
divisions witnessed in the Anglican Church during the laet 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



eighteen months pointed directly to a revival of the * No 
Popery* cry. Hence we find one distinguished critic of 
her work declaring himself as follows : * The “ No Popery ” 
cry is rising, and the Master Christian will float like a cork 
on its topmost crest.’ Miss Corelli has evidently felt the 
influence of Borne as largely as most other writers, but she 
knows the feelings and the tastes of her admirers so 
thoroughly she must have felt that the easiest road to 
popularity lay in the adoption and cultivation of a * shrewish 
vindictiveness ’ as regards the Church and her rulers. The 
references to the person of the Holy Father display an utter 
absence of anything approaching fine feeling or good 
breeding. She so brings it about that her heroine 
Angela paints a portrait of what she regards as a typical 
priest. The picture is labelled ‘ A Servant of Christ 
at the Madeleine, Paris.’ Miss Corelli treats us to 
the following description of the subject represented : — 

‘ Low, beetling brows ; a sensual, cruel mouth, with a 
loosely projecting under lip ; eyes that appeared* to be 
furtively watching each other across the thin bridge of 
nose; a receding chin and a narrow cranium, combined 
with an expression which was hypocritically humble, yet sly.’ 
This, mind you, is not the type of face which obtains in the 
case of a single individual. We are asked to believe that it 
is the face of an entire class ; and, no doubt, two-thirds of 
Miss Corelli’s admirers are fully convinced that such is the 
case. ‘There is no question of choice [Angela is made 
to declare]. These faces are ordinary among our priests. 
At all the churches, Sunday after Sunday, I have looked 
for a good, a noble face in vain, for an even commonly 
honest face — in vain.’ Such is Miss Corelli’s typical priest. 
The example she sets before us of archiepiscopal brutish- 
ness is conceived in the same vein and tarred with the SAtne 
sweeping-brush. She says : — ‘ The smooth countenance, the 
little eyes, comfortably sunken in small rolls of fat ; the 
smug, smiling lips, the gross neck and heavy jaw, and, 
above all, the perfectly self-satisfied and mock-pious air of 
the man.’ By such overdone specimens of caricature did 
Miss Corelli endeavour to fan into some semblance of flame 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



the well-nigh defunct embers of No Popery in this country. 
The attempts, however, in this direction have proved a 
most ghastly failure. The entire press of the nation ridi- 
culed the book, which had an enormous sale notwithstanding ; 
so numerous are the victims of hysteria and neurosis in our 

We can well understand the action of a hunter after 
notoriety of the type of Miss Marie Corelli in playing to 
the Protestant gallery in England ; but what are we to say 
of a journal of the standing of the Saturday Review when 
it seeks to emulate her achievements in a like direction ? Not 
many weeks ago this paper, when reviewing a very charming 
book by Dom Bede Camm, O.S.B., entitled A Day in a 
Cloister , permitted itself to give expression to the following 
sweeping and unsustainable charge against the monastic life 
of the present day : — ‘ There is much evidence to show that 
a degraded animalism, not scandalously vicious, but dully 
gluttonous and material, is the atmosphere of much conven- 
tual life under modern conditions/ Catholic readers of the 
Saturday , who look to its pages, and, as a rule, with appre- 
ciation, for a large-minded, equitable view of men and books 
and systems, must feel disgusted on reading such a revolting 

Among certain classes of our people Mr. Hall Caine ig 
almost as prime a favourite as Miss Marie Corelli herself. I 
cannot say that I have read many of his works, although I 
have long been fulfilled of the desire to know something 
more of them. But since 1883, when he published his 
Cobwebs of Criticism , he has sent forth a long list of novels, 
rejoicing in such monochromatic titles as the Bondsman , the 
Manxman , the Scapegoat , and the Christian. Last year 
Mr. Caine spent a long holiday in Rome, with the result 
that he came under the spell of the Queen of Cities, and is now 
giving to the world the first instalments of his latest novel, the 
Eternal City . The scenes witnessed in Rome during the year 
of Jubilee are described by Mr. Caine with his customary 
grace and clearness. Baedeker has evidently been rarely 
out of his hands, if we are to judge by the amount of 
information he displays on a large range of topics. But 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Mr. Caine never allows himself to forget that bis readers 
are, for the most part, members of the various Protestant 
denominations. Thus, among the pilgrims who have come 
to Borne from all parts of Italy to pay their homage to the 
Supreme Pontiff he remarks upon their clerical guides. 
One is * a simple priest, unkempt, unshaven, with shaggy 
beaver battered by the rain, and heavy shoes stained by the 
soil.* Another cleric is described for us as * an old priest 
with the face of an old woman, but helpless looking and 
uutidy, because he had no woman to take care of him.* 
Doubtless, Mr. Caine met with many such priests in his 
travels through Italy. What I blame him for is his feverish 
anxiety to put those types forward as generally repre- 
sentative of the Italian priesthood, not merely as exceptions. 
Again, in his quite fanciful description of the great pro- 
cession from the Vatican to St. Peter’s on the first day of 
the new century we encounter the following passages : — 

And this dear old Padre with the mittens and rosary and the 
comfortable linsey-wolsey sort of face ? 

That’s Father Pifferi, Confessor to the Pontifical household. 
Ho knows all the sins of the Pope. 

Next come the representatives of the regular clergy, 
brown, white, and black, * nearly all alike, fat, ungainly, 
flabby, puffy specimens of humanity.* Yet, I dare say, 
Mr. Hall Caine regards himself as an unbiassed, dis- 
passionate, narrator of all that he has seen — in his fancy. 

The supreme tribute to the influence and fascination of 
the Catholic Church is to be sought, however, not in the 
handiwork of Miss Marie Corelli or Mr. Hall Cane, but in 
that of Mrs. Humphry Ward, a writer who, when the 
history of English fiction during the closing quarter of the 
nineteenth century comes to be written, will be assigned 
a place far removed on an upward plane from the great 
majority of her contemporaries. Mrs. Ward writes as a 
thinker and a scholar. She is deadly in earnest ; too much 
so, perhaps, for the ordinary shallow reader of fiction. 
Lacking a keen sense of humour, she more than com- 
pensates for this by her keen appreciation of all that is good 
and beautiful in nature and in art. She grips the ordinary 

VOL. x. K 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



intelligent reader in her first chapter, and, willy nilly, 
carries him to the end of her story. In her latest book, 
Eleanor we probably see her at her best* The book, more 
especially to those who have lived and travelled in Italy, 
is altogether fascinating. I cannot remember any work 
that gave me greater pleasure from the purely literary point 
of view during the closing quarter of the year 1900, if you 
except An Englishwoman's Love Letters , and All that was 
Possible, two books replete with even the finest nuance of 
literary expression, and remarkable for a delicate play of 
fancy which render them irresistible to every man of letters. 

Mrs. Ward bids us to the consideration of the Italy of 
our own day, the Italy which has grown so wonderfully 
during the last thirty years, but whose people are ground 
into the earth by an intolerable burthen of taxation, the 
Italy which 4 sent seven thousand of her children to 
butchery in a wretched colony, because her hungry 
politicians must have glory to keep themselves in office,’ 
the Italy which tolerates the imprisonment of the Head of 
the Church of her people, and condones the confiscation of 
his Temporalities. To this Italy, of many lights and 
shadows, Mrs. Ward dedicates her book. 

To Italy the beloved and beautiful, 

Instructress of our past, 

Delight of our present, 

Comrade of our future ; — 

The heart of an Englishwoman 
Offers this book. 

As Browning has it, ‘ Everyone soon or late comes 
round by Rome.’ The chief interest of Mrs. Ward’s book 
is centred in three characters. First, there is Edward 
Manisty, an English Liberal politician of high standing, 
but who has fallen out with the leaders of his party on the 
education question, a sort of disappointed Vice-President of 
the Council in fact. Leaving England in a fit of pique 
Manisty comes to Italy where he interests himself in the 

1 F.Imhot, by Mrs. Humphry Ward. London : Smith, Elder & Co., 
Waterloo -place, 1900. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



deadlock existing between the Italian Government and the 
Papacy. The man's historical sense is profoundly touched 
by the logical and consistent attitude of the Church ; and 
although an avowed agnostic, he resolves to write a book 
which he intends to be an elaborate defence of the claims 
and methods of the Catholic Church. In the composition 
of this work Manisty is assisted by his cousin, Eleanor 
Burgoyne, a widow of thirty, with a past full of sadness, the 
resultant of an unhappy marriage, which ended in a tragedy 
which involved the loss of her only child, a little boy, to 
whom she was passionately attached. Eleanor Burgoyne is 
a woman of rare charm of manner, refined and dignified, 
and though extremely delicate still possessed of a peculiar 
kind of beauty. 4 A certain kind of grace — very rare, and 
very complex in its origin.’ 

The eyes [we read] were, indeed, beautiful ; so was the fore- 
head, and the hair of a soft ashy brown folded and piled round it 
in a most skilful simplicity. It was a face of experience, a face 
of grief ; timid, yet with many strange capacities and suggestions 
both of vehemence and pride. 

During the time that Manisty is engaged upon his book 
Eleanor acts as his secretary, and to some extent as his 
adviser and encourager. She is not a writer, but her 
judgment of literary work is sure and deliberate. A close 
intimacy has gradually sprung up between them as the book 
grew under their hands. The woman seems to take a new 
lease of life. Things and sights which possessed no interest 
for her a lew months ago are now full of attraction. 
Manisty’s mind is extremely well informed. He can con- 
verse eloquently, sometimes vehemently, on most subjects. 
The result is that these two from constant association 
come to regard one another as something more than cousins. 
Thelove, however, is all on the woman’s side. Beyond a 
feeling of gratitude for her valuable help, and a real cousinly 
affection for Eleanor, Manisty has no stronger regard for 
her. It is probable, however, that his manner towards her 
may have conveyed more than this. 

At the date the story opens Manisty’s book is almost 
completed. He looks forward with a sort of exultation to 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



the sensation it will cause, more especially among his fellow- 
members of the Liberal Government in England, all active 
sympathisers with the makers of United Italy (so-called). 
He and Eleanor have been living with his aunt, a 
Miss Manisty, a timid, fussy old soul, for several months in 
an old villa, built high on the ridge of the Alban Hills. 

Below it [we readj olive-grounds and vineyards, plough-lands 
and pine plantations sank, slope after slope, fold after fold, to the 
Campagna, and beyond the Campagna, along the whole shining 
lino of the west, the sea met the sunset ; while to the north, a dim 
and scattered whiteness rising from the plain, was Borne. 

Rome seen from the villa through the midst of the 
gathering storm clouds, presented a most imposing 

Over Romo itself there was a strange massing and curving of 
the clouds. Between their blackness and the deep purple of the 
Campagna, rose the city — pale phantom — upholding one great 
domo, and one only, to the view of night and the world. Round 
and above and behind, beneath the long flat arch of the storm, 
glowed a furnace of scarlet light. The buildings of the city were 
faint specks within its fierce intensity, dimly visible through a sea 
of fire. St. Peter’s alone, without visible foundation or support, 
had consistence, form, identity. 

In this villa we come face to face with Manisty for the 
first time. The man repells one, notwithstanding all 
Mrs. Ward’s attempts to make him acceptable. There is 
much in him of the churl, much of the cad, much conceit, 
much vanity and self-complacency. He is described for us 
as being of middle height, no longer in his first youth, with 
an extraordinarily handsome head, face, and shoulders : but 
with a somewhat irregular, stunted figure. He has black 
hair, grey eyes, and dark complexion, the nose is long, the 
mouth energetic. There is a sense of discord about the 
whole man which, however, imparted 4 an effect of power — 
of personality— of something that claimed and held atten- 

A visitor is coming to the villa much to Manisty’s 
disgust. This is Miss Lucy Foster, a young Puritan from 
Boston, whose friends in that cultured city had been 
particularly kind to Manisty, on the occasion of his tour 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



through the United States. The contrast between the 
studied simplicity of Lacy’s style of dress, and the rich, 
finished, elegance of Eleanor’s, is almost ludicrous when 
they first met. ‘ Oh ! poor child — poor child ! — what a 
frock 1 ’ was Eleanor’s inward ejaculation. Manisty was to 
take the young American into dinner. * Good heavens, why 
she is a perfect chess-board,’ he thought to himBelf, looking 
askance at her dress, in a sudden and passionate dislike — 
* one could play draughts upon her, what has my aunt been 
about.’ If Manisty is disgusted with the first appearance 
of Miss Foster, Eleanor, with her fine womanly intuition, 
discovers the real character of the young American, and her 
possibilities for loveliness when treated by the proper hands. 
They become the best of friends from the first After dinner 
the Englishwoman shows the young American a charcoal 
sketch of the Holy Father. ‘ Isn’t it clever. It is by one 
of your compatriots, an American artist in Rome. Isn’t it 
wonderful, too, the way in which it shows you, not the Pope 
but the Papacy — not the man but the Church?’ At 
Manisty’s villa the chief figures in Rpman society are 
wont to foregather. There are ambassadors, cardinals, 
clerics, members of the Guardia Nobile. Their conversation 
is a revelation to the American girl, who is positively 
scandalized at seeing Mrs. Burgoyne, nominally a Scotch 
Presbyterian, attending Mass regularly in the church at 
Marinata. * She found, herself living with two people for 
whom Catholicism was not, indeed, a personal faith, but a 
thing to be passionately admired and praised like art, or 
music, or poetry.’ Manisty grows more and more interested 
in her. The puritanical bias of her views on Italy and tbe 
Papacy affords him endless opportunity for raillery. With 
him and Eleanor she attends a grand function at St. Peter’s, 
where she sees Leo XIII. for the first time. 

The white figure, high above the crowd, sways from side to 
side : the hand upraised gives the Benediction. Fragile, spiritual 
as is the apparition, the sunbeam refines, subtilises, spiritualises 
it still more. It hovers like a dream above the vast multitudes — 
surely no living man ! — but thought, history, faith, taking shape : 
the passion of many hearts revealed. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



Speaking of this glorious ceremony afterwards to Lucy, 
Manisty tells her that the thing which renders such func- 
tions so tremendous is — 

That there is no break between that man and Peter — or Linus, 
if you like, it comes to the same thing ; that the bones, if not of 
Peter, at any rate of men who might have known Peter, are 
there mingled with the earth beneath his feet ; that he stands 
there recognised by half the civilized world as Peter's successor ; 
that five hundred, a thousand years hence, the vast probability is 
there will still be a Pope in St. Peter's to hand on the same 
traditions and make the same claims. 

Just about the time Manisty’s book in defence of the 
claims of the Holy See is ready for the printers, a friend of 
his, Mr. Vanbrugh Neal, comes to stay with him in the villa 
at Marinata. This man is described for us as a devout 
Anglican of a delicate and scrupulous type. His temper 
was academic, his life solitary ; rhetoric left him unmoved, 
and violence of statement caused him to shiver. As might 
naturally be expected, Manisty asked him for his opinion 
of his recently finished work, and Neal advanced certain 
critical objections which affected both the facts and the 
arguments of one whole section of the book. This man 
had evidently gauged the inherent weaknesses in Manisty’s 
character correctly. All his egotism notwithstanding, he 
was hopelessly dependent on the opinions of a few friends, 
of whom Vanbrugh Neal was one. Together the two men 
debated the points raised by Manisty’s visitor — Neal always 
gentle and insinuating ; Manisty violent, excited, obstinate, 
yet generally giving way with unexpected suddenness. 

When Manisty denounced irresponsible science and free 
thought as the enemies of the State, which must live, and can 
only live by religion ; when he asked with disdain, ‘ What reason- 
able man would nowadays weigh the membership of the Catholic 
Church against an opinion in geology or exegesis ? ’ when he 
dwelt on the easiness of faith, — which had nothing whatever to do 
with knowledge, and had, therefore, no quarrel with knowledge ; 
or upon the incomparable social power of religion — his friend 
grew restive. 

Neal, however, was always ready to shatter an exuberance, 
to check an oratorical flow by some quick double-edged word 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



that would make Manisty trip and stammer, and showed 
how great is the gulf between a literary and a practical 

Smarting under the sting of his friend’s arguments* 
Manisty hastily decides against publishing his book. All 
the labour and research of months have been spent in vain. 
Associating Eleanor in some vague way with his disappoint- 
ment, he behaves towards her in such a way as to arouse in 
her a sudden tumult of passionate pride and misery. The 
woman has given this man her heart, and to add to the 
bitterness evoked by his coldness, she notices a growing 
fondness on his part for the American girl, Lucy Foster, 
Herein we have the making of a fine tragedy, and it must 
be said that Mrs. Ward employs each development of the 
situation with cleverness and freshness. Someone has said 
that women love most by whom they are most tried ; and 
Whittier does not hesitate to say that : — 

Woman wronged, ean cherish hate 

More deep and dark than manhood may. 

Certainly in the case of Eleanor there is something vastly 
touching in the sincerity of her affection for Manisty. 

The only portion of this remarkable book which lays 
Mrs. Ward open to the charge of having taken Protestant 
prejudice into account during its composition is her exploita- 
tion of the pathetic Father Beuecke. Manisty defends the 
action of the Churcli in his regard, although he entertains 
the highest reverence for the character of Benecke himself. 
The average Protestant, however, will read into Mrs. Ward's 
criticism a still further example of the tyranny which the 
Vatican is supposed to exercise over intelligence and indepen- 
dence of thought. It is perfectly hopeless to try and explain 
the position of the Church as a divinely appointed teacher to 
those who are carried away by every untested theory and 
absurd hypothesis advanced by the soi-disant scientists of 
the present day. 

Father Benecke is a native of Southern Germany, and is 
described as having filled the chair of theology in a uni- 
versity. At the age of sixty-five he published a philosophical 
Work which brought him into conflict with the Church. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



He is called upon to renounce his views and theories, and 
he submits himself to the voice of authority. So far so 
good. A cardinal, however, with whom he is acquainted, 
informs him that Leo XIII. has been greatly troubled in 
mind on his account, and suggests the writing of a private, 
filial letter, which he (the cardinal) may take to the Holy 
Father. Benecke at once falls in with this idea on condition 
that no one shall be permitted to see his letter save the 
Supreme Pontiff and the cardinal who carries it to him. 
We are given to understand that this condition is accepted. 

‘ Now/ says Benecke to Manisty a few days after, 1 this 
morning, there is ray letter— the whole of it — in the 
Osservatore Bomano ! To-morrow — I came to tell you — 

I will withdraw it. I withdraw my submission.’ Manisty’s 
remarks to the priest are characteristic. He says : ‘ You 
have been abominably treated — no doubt of that. But have 
you counted the cost ? Intellectually, I am all with you — 
strategically, all with them. They can’t give way ! the 
smallest breach lets in the flood, and then, chaos ! ’ Benecke 
however, is obstinate, with the result that he pays the 
inevitable penalty. The man, as put before us by Mrs. 
Ward, is a marvellously attractive character. To the end she 
makes him speak and act as only a priest, I had almost said 
a saint, can speak and act. But Mrs. Ward does violence 
to our convictions, to our judgment, when she asks us to 
believe that a man of Benecke’s intense spirituality (his 
temperament, says Mrs. Ward, was that of the ascetic and 
missionary religious), could ever have associated himself 
with such a contemptible and grossly material body as the 
German Old Catholics. 

Meanwhile Manisty ’s infatuation for the American girl, 
Lucy Foster, grows stronger daily. The deepest well- 
springs of affection in the man’s being are brought into 
action by this girl as the result of her almost miraculous 
escape from death at the hands of Manisty's mad sister who 
has been staying for a short while under his roof. This 
scene is one of the most wonderfnlly vivid and powerful in 
the whole book. Lucy, on her part, feels herself being 
gradually dominated by the man's personality. She cannot 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



understand, much less analyse, her feelings in his regard. 
Eleanor grasps the situation in a moment. She is not the 
one, however, to submit to defeat without a struggle. 
She may exclaim in all sincerity : Que vivre est difficile , 
o mon cceur fatigue ! but yet she contrives to bring home 
to Lucy the greatness of her love for Manisty. 

‘ It is not you [she explains to the young American] but fate. 
You have taken from me — or you are about to take from me 
— the last thing left to me on this earth ! I have had one 
chance of happiness, and only one, in all iny life, till now, and at 
last I have found another chance — and after seven weeks you — 
you— are dashing it from me ! ' 

‘ Mrs. Burgoyne,* Lucy exclaims, ‘ is it kind — is it bearable — 
that you should say these things to me? I have not deserved 
them. What right have you ? * 

* What right ? ' repeated Eleanor, in low tones — tones almost 
of astonishment. 1 The right of hunger — the right of poverty — 
the right of one pleading for a last possession ! a last hope ! ’ 

The intense passion of the older woman bears down the 
younger who recognises now that Eleanor has been badly 
treated by Manisty, and that by right he is hers. What 
troubles us here, however, is to find any reasonable 
explanation of either Eleanor’s or Lucy’s infatuation 
for Manisty. Eleanor, notwithstanding her love for 
him, is fully alive to his defects of mind and character, 
which, I presume, she was prepared to bear with. ‘ Alack ! ’ 
says Mrs. Ward, ‘ What woman ever yet refused to 
love a man because he loved himself ? ’ As for Lucy 
there is something utterly repellant in the notion of 
a pretty young girl being fascinated by a middle-aged 
egotist of the type of Manisty. Mrs. Ward evidently 
wishes us to understand that the man’s personality was 
irresistibly forcible. But this is exactly what we never 
do feel, not even for a moment throughout her book. Pro- 
bably the female mind sees things in a different light from 
that in which we regard them. 9 Woman/ says an old 
playwright, 1 is a microcosm ; and rightly to rule her requires 
as great talents as to govern a state.’ A high appreciation 
truly, and as far removed from the famous dictum of Arch- 
bishop Whately, who would have us believe that * Woman 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



is a creature without reason, who pokes the fire from the 

Anxious to put themselves outside the range of Manisty’s 
influence Eleanor and Lucy, after much interchange of ideas, 
resolve to fly to a remote part of Italy leaving no address 
behind them. They take up their abode in a few wretched 
rooms in a portion of what had once been a Carmelite 
Convent situated on Torre Amiata , some miles beyond 
Orvieto. It is the hot season of June and July, and Eleanor, 
always delicate, gives evident signs of approaching utter 
collapse in spite of all her efforts to sustain her vitality. 

In this part of her book Mrs. Wards treats her readers 
to some delightful descriptions of Italian life and scenery. 
The contadini , the carabiniare , the padre parroco t all pass 
before us in all their native charm and rusticity. 

Daring their stay at Torre Amiata Eleanor and Lucy 
make the acquaintance of the Countess Guerrini, one of the 
most natural and convincing characters in the whole book. 
The Contessa is the local landowner. Her only son had 
lost his life daring the disastrous Italian campaign in 
Erythrea. She is now living in the strictest seclusion with 
her daughter in their palazzo, trying to assuage her grief for 
the loss of her son by ministering daily to the wants of the 
poor in the district round about. During one of her visits 
to the Contessa Eleanor is introduced to Don Teodoro, the 
young padre parroco of the village church. He is described 
as a slim, engaging figure, with a boyish charm and spon- 
taneity which seemed to be characteristic. 

Eleanor watched him with admiration, noticing the subtle 
discernment of the Italian which showed through all his 
simplicity of manner. It was impossible to mistake, for instance, 
that he felt himself in a house of mourning. The movements of 
body and voice were all at first subdued and sympathetic. Yet 
the mourning had passed into a second stage, and ordinary topics 
might now he introduced. He glided into them with the most 
perfect tact. 

For a woman of Mrs. Ward’s extraordinary cleverness 
and knowledge of the views entertained by the various 
parties in the Italy of the present day, the Contessa and the 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



parroco make excellent puppets for the display of her 
acquaintance with the different sides of a situation singular 
in the annals of modern history. When condemning, during 
the course of conversation, the action of the King and Queen 
of Italy for being present at a lecture delivered by a Jew 
named Mazzoli in which he pleaded the need of a ‘ new 
religion * for the people of Italy, the young parroco insists 
that outside the Church there can be no true philosophy. 
At this the Contessa laughs and, turning upon him a flashing 
and formidable eye, says : - 

* Let the Church add a little patriotism to her philosophy, 
Father ; she will find it better appreciated.’ 

Don Teodoro straightened to the blow. 1 1 am a Roman, 
Eccellenza — you also, sc it si ! ’ 

4 I am an Italian, Father — you also. But you hate your 

Thereupon the Priest adds : — * I have nothing to do with the 
Italy of Venti Settembre. That Italy has three marks of dis- 
tinction before Europe — by which you may know her.’ 

1 And those ? ’ said the Countess, calm and challenging. 

* Debt, Eccellenza ! Hunger ! Crimes of blood ! Sono il suo 
primaio — I'ltnico ! * 

* Ah ! * said the Countess, flushing, ‘ there were none of those 
things in the old Papal States? Under the Bourbons? The 
Austrians? * 

1 Eccellenza , Jesus Christ and his Vicar come before the House 
of Savoy ! ’ 

1 Ruin us, and see what you will gain ! 1 

* Eccellenza , the Lord rules.’ 

1 Well, well. Break the eggs — that’s easy. But whether the 
omelet will be as the Jesuits please, that’s another affair.’ 

And so ends an oft repeated battle in which each of the 
parties clings passionately to his own view. 

The chief surprise in store for the two fugitives at Torre 
Amiata is the unexpected presence of Father Benecke. He 
is labouring under the censure of the Church, and even the 
children in this out of the way Italian village fly from him 
as if he were a plague. Eleanor comes upon him rather 
suddenly in the half ruined chapel attached to the old 
Carmelite Convent in a corner of which she and Lucy have 
taken up their abode. 

4 Madame,’ says Benecke, ‘ you see a man dying of hunger 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



and thirst ! He cannot cheat himself with fine words. He 

Eleanor expresses surprise, not quite grasping his meaning. 

1 For forty- two years,’ he said, in a low, pathetic voice, 1 have 
I received my Lord, day after day, without a break ; and now 
they have taken Him away, and I know not where they have laid 

The man is filled with a sense of desolation. Eleanor 
realised his hunger of soul, as she remembers having beard 
of the nuns in some convent in Rome who frequently 
became ill with restlessness on Good Fridays, when Christ 
was absent from the tabernacle in their little chapel. 

The evident sincerity of the man and the simplicity of 
his character appeal more and more strongly to Eleanor. 
The tension of mind under which she has laboured so long, 
nnited with the suffocating heat of the Italian midsummer, 
have exhausted from her all her slender stock of strength 
and activity. Feeling that her death cannot be far distant, 
she resolves to unburthen her soul to Benecke, who, as I 
have already said, speaks to her as only a saint could. In 
fact, we never seem to realise, so beautiful and convincing 
is Mrs. Ward’s portrayal of the priestly character, that the 
man is at variance with the teaching authority of tb$ Church. 
Eleanor explains to him the depth of her passion for 
Manisty, and the object she had in view in separating him 
from Lucy : — 

* I had reason,’ she says, * to think that life had changed for 
me, after many years of unhappiness. I gave my whole, whole 
heart away. ... I had done much to deserve bis kindness ; he 
owed me a great deal. Not, I mean, for the miserable work I had 
done for him, but for the love, the thought by day and night, that 
I had given him. There was, of course, some one else, Father, 
some one younger and far more attractive than I. There was no 
affinity of nature and mind to go upon, or I thought so. It 
seemed to me all done in a moment by a beautiful face. I could 
not be expected to bear it, could I ? I resisted — successfully. I 
separated them. The girl who supplanted me was most tender, 
dear, and good. She pitied me, and I worked upon her pity. I 
took her away from my friend, and why should I not ? Why are 
we called on perpetually to give up, give up ? It seemed to me 
such a cruel, cold, unhuman creed. I knew my own life was 
broken — beyond mending — but I couldn’t bear the unkindness ; 

Digitized by ^ooqLc 

A novel of Modern italY 


I couldn't forgive the injury ; I couldn’t, couldn’t. I took her 
away, and my power is still great enough, and will always be 
great enough, if I choose, to part these two from each other.’ 

‘ My child,* the priest makes answer, * God has done you a 
great honour. There are very few of whom God condescends to 
ask as plainly, as generously, as He now asks of you. What 
does it matter whether God speaks to us amid the thorns or the 
flowers ? But I do not remember that He ever spoke among the 
flowers, but often, often, among deserts and wildernesses. You 
say that you have renounced the expectation of happiness. What, 
then, do you desire ? Merely the pain, the humiliation, of others. 
But is that an end that any man or woman may lawfully pursue, 
pagan or Christian ? All selfish desire is sin— desire that defies 
God and wills the hurt of man. But you will cast it out. The 
travail is already begun in you that will form the Christ.* 

1 Father, creeds and dogmas mean nothing to me ! ’ ‘ Perhaps,’ 

he said calmly; 'does religion also mean nothing to you? Ask 
yourself whether in truth Christ means nothing to you — and 
Calvary nothing ? Why is it that this divine figure is enshrined, 
if not in all our affections — at least, in all our imaginations ? 
Why is it that at the heart of this modern world, with all its love 
of gold, its thirst for knowledge, its desire for pleasure, there still 
lives and burns this strange madness of sacrifice, this foolishness 
of the Cross ? How has our world of lust and iron produced such 
a thing ? How, except as the clue to the world’s secret, is man to 
explain it to himself ? Ah ! my daughter, think what you will of 
the nature and dignity of the Crucified — but turn your eyes to the 
Cross. Trouble yourself with no creeds — I speak this to your 
weakness — but sink yourself in the story of the Passion and its 
work upon the world ! Then bring it to bear upon your own case. 
There is in you a root of evil mind, an angry desire, a cupido 
which keeps you from God. Lay it down before the Crucified, 
and rejoice — rejoice ! — that you have something to give to your 
God, before He gives you Himself.* 

Benecke is resolved to strain every nerve to bring 
Eleanor to faith, to sacrifice, and to God. He and Manisty 
occasionally correspond, and in one of his letters he asks the 
Englishman to come and spend a few days with him. 
His invitation finds Manisty wearied after a long and profit- 
less journey all over Italy in quest of the two ladies who are 
quietly living at Torre Ainiata. He makes up his mind to 
come and see Benecke who has made no mention of the 
near presence of his long sought relative and friend. The 
inevitable result, of course, is that Manisty discovers their 
whereabouts; and as the book draws to a close we are 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



afforded a glimpse of Eleanor’s great act of renunciation, 
and Lucy’s growing affection for Manisty, a fact which jars 
upon our feelings most unpleasantly. Do what we may it 
is still hard to associate this clear-eyed American girl with a 
middle-aged egotist of the type of Manisty. Mrs. Ward 
herself seems at a loss to explain the situation, she says of 
Lucy : — 

Did her love for him rest partly on a secret sense of vocation ? 
a profound, inarticulate, divining of his vast, his illimitable need 
for such a one as she to love him ? 

Lucy may, perhaps, have found her true vocation. But 
from our knowledge of Manisty 's character and disposition, 
his insufferable conceit and priggishness, one can safely 
harbour a misgiving as to its duration. 

Eleanor , with all its drawbacks, will probably rank 
among the best of Mrs. Ward’s novels. Like all her work 
it is well and carefully written; and although most of the 
characters are not over-convincing, and decidedly middle- 
aged, yet there are numerous other compensations for these 
drawbacks. The book will undoubtedly do much to fix the 
attention of the reading public on the existing relations 
between Church and State in Italy. When I say this I 
must not be taken as generally endorsing the majority of 
Mrs. Ward's conclusions. Far from it. But no matter 
how widely we may differ from her we cannot withhold a 
feeling of genuine admiration for the pains she has taken to 
study a situation fraught with difficulty to the non-Catholic 
mind. Again, the knowledge she displays of Italian character 
is perfectly marvellous. She seems perfectly acquainted 
with the conditions of life of the people of the country, and 
gives us some delightful descriptions of Italian scenery. 
Thus, towards the end of the book she makes Manisty say : — 

* It is a marvellous country, this ! What rivers — what fertility 
— what a climate ! and the industry of the people. Catch a few 
English farmers and set them to do what the Italian peasant 
does, year in and year out, without a murmur ! Look at the coast 
south of Naples. There is not a yard of it, scarcely, that hasn’t 
been made by human hands. Look at the hill -towns ; and think 
of the human toil that has gone to the making and maintaining 
of them since the world began.* 

Digitized by 



Manisty would fain bring all secularising folk, English 
secularists included, to Italy to study the results of the 
struggle between Church and State in that country. 

‘ Just understand/ he says ‘ what it means to separate Church 
from State, to dig a gulf between the religious and the civil life. 
Here’s a country where nobody can be at once a patriot and a 
good Christian — where the Catholics don’t vote for Parliament, 
and the State Schools teach no religion — where the nation is 
divided into two vast camps, hating and thrusting at each other 
with every weapon they can tear from life.’ 

Still, he insists, there are forces in Italy that will re- 
make Church no less than State as the generations go 
by. His final judgment on the situation takes rather a 
paradoxical form. He says : — ‘ The truth of the matter 
seems to be that Italy is Catholic, because she hasn’t faith 
enough to make a heresy; and anti-clerical, because it is 
her destiny to be a nation.’ 

In another chapter of this deeply interesting book 
Mrs. Ward makes a Madame Variani say, when referring to 
Manisty, — 

1 Most Englishmen have two sides to their brain — while we 
Ijatins have only one. But Manisty is like a Latin — he has only 
one. He takes a whim, and then he must cut and carve the 
world to it. But the world is tough — et qa nc marchc pas ! We 
can’t go to ruin to please him. Italy is not falling to pieces— not 
at all. Italy will win ! Manisty takes the thing too tragically. 
He doesn’t see the farce in it ; we do. We Italians understand 
each other. We are half-acting all the time. The North will 
never understand the South. 

With which declaration most thinking people will agree, 
especially if they have lived for a few years in Italy. 

There is one quality, the utter absence of which must 
render the perusal of Mrs. Ward’s books slightly dis- 
tasteful to a number of readers, and that is her want of a 
sense of humour, the saving salt of which has carried many 
an indifferent book to success. Mrs. Ward is probably too 
serious ; and as her writings are usually given over to the 
discussion of grave social or religious problems, the habit 
of eliminating anything of a frivolous or humorous nature 
has become fixed, much to the detriment of her novels. 

Digitized by LjOoqIc 



There is, howevei, one spark of fun in Eleanor over 
which even the gravest must hold their sides. We are 
introduced at a garden party given by the English 
Ambassador in Rome, in the Villa Borghese, to a Doctor 
Jensen, one of the most learned men in the world. The 
paradox of the man’s existence was that he cared nothing 
for his reputation as a savant His one consuming desire 
was to be regarded as a ‘ sad dog ’ — a terrible man with the 
ladies. Introduced to Eleanor, he bowed low, smiling 
fatuously, with his hand on his heart. Daring the course 
of conversation he told her how that the other day he had 
gone back to the Hermitage Library at St. Petersburg, 
after a lapse of thirty years, to consult some rare books 
contained on its shelves. In a work which had not been 
disturbed since he last used it he found a leaf of paper on 
which he had written some words in pencil. They were 
1 my own darling.’ 

1 And if I only knew now rich darling,* he said to Eleanor, 
slapping his knee. ‘ Vich darling ! * 

Truly a natural stroke this, and evidently true to life. 

Richard A. O’Gorman, o.s.a. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

[ 161 ] 


W HO has not heard this exhortation ? What Catholic 
has not committed to memory and recited daily some 
form purporting to be an Act of Contrition? But what 
percentage of them do, in reality, make the act ? We must 
await the answer until the day of general revelation. But, 
in the meantime, for ourselves, and for all whom our duties 
and responsibilities might reach, might it not be well to 
consider — 1. The importance of the subject ; 2. To see if 
our ideas on it are correct ; 3. How in practice it may be 
attained? We treat the subject of Contrition, quite inde- 
pendently of the question, as to the sorrow necessary for 
sacramental absolution. 

I.— 1. For the readers of the I. E. Record no proof is 
needed that all are bound to make an Act of Charity during 
life ; and for this, in the case of grievous sin, an Act of 
Contrition is required. That it is a matter of positive pre- 
cept we know from Deuteronomy, and in the New Law we 
infer the same from the Sermon on the Mount. 1 He taught 
them, saying : 1 Be ye, therefore,, perfect/ He taught ‘ the 
multitudes * the obligation of being perfect. Therefore, not 
the Apostles only, or priests or religious, but the people 
generally ; each according to their place in the world, must 
labour to perfect themselves.* Now this perfection is 
nothing more or less than charity. Such is the teaching 
of St. Alphonsus, quoting St. Francis de Sales, both 
doctors of the Church. The latter says : 4 Some make 
perfection consist in austerity, others in prayer . . But 
they are all deceived ; Perfection consists in loving God 
with our whole hearts ’ ; while St. Alphonsus makes it the 
one thing necessary, citing the words of inspiration : 
‘ Charity, which is the bond of perfection.* To these testi- 
monies we may add the pithy and well-known sentence of 
St. Augustine : 4 Love God, and do what you please.' 

1 Matt. ▼. 
VOL. X. 

* Manning, Eternal Prietthood. 


Digitized by LjOoq le 



2. We may die suddenly, without the aids of sacraments, 
yet with time left for the Act of Contrition, if only we know 
how to make it. What this, with the desire of confession, 
will do for the soul, in sin or grace, a child can tell. 

3. The certainty of being in the state of grace admits some 
fear of the contrary, and sometimes becomes more diluted 
still; and yet there is no distinct obligation to confess. 
Torturing fears rob the soul of peace, particularly if sacred 
functions are soon to be performed, which demand great 
purity of soul. Who, in such a state of things, could over- 
rate the Act of Contrition ? 

4. But if it is to the purpose every day and hour, much 
more at the last day and hour of life. St. Alphonsus holds it 
to be necessary. 4 No security can be too great when eternity 
is at stake. 9 1 We must be all tutiorists at that hour. Not 
only probabilities, and of the slenderest kind, should be 
counted with, but even possibilities. And possibilities there 
are with reference to matter and form of the sacraments, with 
reference to minister and recipient alike. Then, let the 
obligation be established or not, he would, in our opinion, 
be somewhat ra*h who would, at such a crisis, slight the 
teaching of our great moralist, saint, and doctor of the 

5. Nor is it idle to suppose that many a well-instructed 
Catholic might do for their Protestant neighbours, in dying, 
a work which to the priest would be impossible. They 
would not hear of priest or confession, but will receive the 
visits of lay Catholic neighbours. Well, let one such 
zealous and otherwise competent lay person, suppressing 
all mention of priest and sacrament, and of everything that 
might disturb the bona fide * , suggest the motive of Contri- 
tion, and help him in making the Act, and in eliciting a 
desire to do all that God wills in the circumstances ; and he 
will have performed an act of most needful charity. Whether, 
having gained so far the confidence of his friend, it might 
become a question of conditional baptism, we submit it to 
better judgment. 

1 Imitation of Chrut . 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



II. Having considered the value of contrition, let us now 
see what in reality it is. And first, what it is not. Here 
the motive is everything ; and the motive, it may be safely 
asserted, is not fear or hope or gratitude. These are good 
and prepare the way ; but not one of them, nor all together, 
constitute the motive of the Act. 1 * * The motive is charity or 
the amor Benevolentiae. By charity we prefer God to all 
His creatures — things and persons — because by reason of 
His goodness He is lovable above all. And by Contrition 
we turn away from sin through the same motive. Charity 
being first in order, not of time — for there is no such order — 
it will be sufficient to consider its requirements as a motive 
to Contrition. 

The charity of which there is question is love of God 
above all things for His own infinite perfections, and 
♦regarded as a friend to whom we wish well.* This is the 
common opinion, and we cannot, therefore, content our- 
selves with the opinion which advocates God’s goodness to 
us as a sufficient motive of charity. And, following the 
line of safe opinions, we add that not one or more of the 
divine attributes is the motive sought, but all summed 
up in the word 4 Bonitas,’ which is the Complexio omnium 

The opinion, stating that a single attribute, v.g. 9 Justice, 
would be a sufficient motive should be qualified. It would 
not do to say 4 1 love . . . because He is infinitely just.’ 
The motive should turn on the Divine Goodness, 4 debet 
ferri in Deum ratione boni,’ 8 — Divine justice showing Him 
to be good and amiable above all things. Yet even in this 
qualified sense it is but an opinion — St. Alphousus and 
others holding the contrary. 4 

Does perfect charity, then, exclude every thought of self, 
of punishments and rewards, even of the happiness of 
enjoying the 4 sovereign good ’ ? 

1 Sum. 2, 2, q. 24, a. 2. Timor introdncit Charitat&m , Fides Oenerat Spun, 

et Spot Chart to tern. 

a Maz., l)e Vert, inf., 1229, etc. 

* Maz. , De Vert. »»/., n, 1240, 

* Tract . 6, u. 437. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



So_thought Fenelon, but the doctrine is condemned by 
the Church. No, the love God requires is a love of friend- 
ship, ‘ Amicitia,’ 1 the bond of union being the beatific 
vision — Vita atema .* So far then from perfect charity 
shutting out hope for self, it requires it even. To disregard 
the promised gifts of a friend would be destructive of 
friendship ; and the great God in His strong love for us 
condescends to be our friend. The God we love must be 
our God, so that if, per impossibile, it were otherwise — this 
is the teaching of 8t. Thomas — charity would be impos- 
sible. 3 To love God aright we are then under the happy 
necessity of hoping to enjoy Him. Yet this latter must 
not enter into the motive of our love. St. Bernard puts it 
well : ‘ Non sine prsemio diligitur Deus etsi absque prasmii 
intuitu diligendus sit.’ We love God for Himself ; and in this 
love we find our own happiness, which certainly He wishes 
us to seek. It will then easily be seen that the perfection 
of charity is to be sought not in intensity of the feelings 
or even of the will, but solely in the motive, a preferring 
of God to all His creatures and among them to ourselves. 
Emotional feelings which belong to the inferior part of the 
soul are somewhat comforting; for, it is rather to be expected 
that the intensity of a will turning from sin and uuited to 
God would tell upon the senses and move to tenderness and 
tears. Yet this is but an accident, for there are many by 
nature austere and cold in whom these tender feelings are 
not easily engaged, yet they are men of good will, strongly 
attached to God, and faithful in the hour of trial. Nor are 
the emotional feelings absolutely reliable as proofs of super- 
natural, sorrowing love. Of themselves they are natural, 
and do not rise to a higher level, and may in nowise affect 
the will. 4 

III. The Means; or, How to Attain to the Love of 

1 * Qui manet in Caritate in Deo manet et Dana in eo.* — 1 John iv. 1 Vos 
amici mei estia.’ 

a Mas., Ditp. 6, xl 1253, referring to the Summa 1 , 2. q. 65, a. 5, etc. 
2, 2, q. 23, a. 1. 

3 * Si Deus non esset hominis bonutn, non asset ei ratio diUgendi.’ — 2* 2 M - 
q. 26. a 13. In such case we should * admire bnt not lore Him ; * words of 
St. Francis de Sales from The Love of Qo4. 

* See Scarara, On Charity, roL iy. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

*make an act Of contrition* 


Benevolence and Perfect Contrition . — The work is super- 
natural and therefore there is need of grace. And furthermore, 
our mind could not reach the motive of charity so as to 
influence .the will without the infusion of the habit of 
charity. 4 Charitas Die diffusa est in cordibus nostris per 
Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis . 1 1 Thus quotes 
St. Thomas, and continues : — 

Deus secundum se est maxime cognoscibilis, non tamen a 
nobis propter defectum nostrse cognition is, quae dependet a rebus 
6ensibilibus ; item etiam Deus in se est maxime diligibilis in quan- 
tum est objectum beatitudinis, sed hoc modo non est maxime 
diligibilis a nobis propter inclinationem affectus nostri ad visibilia 
bona. Unde patet, quod ad Deum maxime hoc modo diligendum 
necesse est quod nostris cordibus caritas infundatur. 1 2 

Grace, then, is necessary, actual and sanctifying . 3 4 And, 
as grace is given ordinarily in answer to prayer, hence the 
need of prayer in the first place. 

In the second place, the faculties of the soul thus super- 
naturally aided must be engaged in the work. The under- 
standing has to be convinced by a motive known by faith, 
and through the understanding the will has to be brought 
into action. Now, the motive we have seen is high, the 
highest possible, the Divine attributes ; and can we think 
to reach it? Charity is commanded; and all are bound to 
make acts of charity frequently during life ; therefore, it is 
at least possible. Nor can it be very difficult of attainment, 
since an Apostle' has said, ‘His commandments are not 
heavy.’ Under the Old Law even the commandment (of 
love) was not far off, not 5 beyond the sea nor above in 
heaven that one should call it impossible or hard* But, 
under the law of love, charity — its motive and itself — is 
made easier still ; for a Divine Person has come down from 

1 Rom. t. 

• 2*- q. 24, a. 2. 

8 If, happily, iii grace already, the soul, by prayer and by elicting the Act, 
can receive an ; if not in grace, then, simultaneously with the Act of 
Contrition, sanctifying grace will be infused. We leave untouched the con. 
troversy as to whether sanctifying grace and the habit of charity are not one 
and the same thing. 

4 John v. 82. 

8 Deut. xxx. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



heaven to make God visible 1 and palpable and lovable. Let 
us hear St. Cyril : — 

We could not form an idea of God, pure and uncreated 
Spirit as Ho is, to worship Him ; therefore, did He put on our 
flesh as a garment, that we might have an idea of Him, and 
that we might even see and hear Him and enjoy His society . 1 

Such, too, the thought placed beautifully before us 
by the Church as one of the causes of the Nativity* in 
the Preface, ‘ Quia per Incamati Verbi Mysterium ,’ etc. — 
'Because by the Mystery of the Incarnate Word a new 
light from Thy brightness hath enlightened the eyes of our 
mind, that whilst we know God visibly (in the flesh) we 
may by Him be drawn to the love of things invisible (i.e., 
the Divine attributes).’ So it is, without any great effort 
of the imagination we come to God through the Man-God ; 
for, by the Incarnation He has bridged over the abyss that 
lay between us and the thought of God. We are certain 
that He trod this earth and blessed it with His sacred feet ; 
that He went in and out amongst men ; that for men He 
suffered and He died ; and that He still remains with us in 
the tabernacle. 

Yet, all these facilities notwithstanding, the Act of Con- 
trition is no easy matter for a certain class of sinners. 
There are those who * drink iniquity like water ; ’ who take 
no interest in God ; never entertain a loving thought about 
Him, but would seem to say in defiance ‘ I have sinned and 
what evil hath befallen me ’ : for such the difficulty remains 
and would seem all but insuperable. But God wills the 
salvation of every one of His human creatures, at all times 
and in all circumstances ; He is a God of mercy who loves 
to pardon ;* and, according to a maxim in theology, is never 
wanting in the necessities of His creatures. Here is an 
urgent necessity : a sinner at the point of death and no 
sacrament available — let some intelligent lay person put 
before his mind the motive of Contrition, advancing, or 

1 1 He that seeth Me 8eeth the Father aleo.’ - John xiy. 9. 
2 A Lapide, On St, Luke, oh. ii. v. 7. 
a Ibid. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



rather, rising step by step, from the imperfect to the perfect; 
let him pray with him and for him, engaging the advocacy 
of the Kefuge of Sinners, and trusting in the Precious 
Blood, and then hope that Contrition will be forthcoming. 

We have said ‘rising step by step.’ ,Now, what are the 
steps by which not only the obdurate and ordinary sinner 
but also the fervent Christian may come to make the Act of 
Contrition ? 

1. As we have already seen, to pray for the grace — 
‘ Diffusa esty etc. Grace, we may hope, will be given to 
expel sin, or, if happily grace abides already in the soul it 
will abide still more. 

2. Place the motive before the mind to be carefully con- 
sidered. But how? Go directly to meditate the Divine 
Attributes ? The cleverest theologian should, we fear, confess 
to failure; and, in all humility, begin lower down. 1 * * Recall 
the teaching of St. Cyril, and the Preface of the Nativity. 
St. Thomas has written ‘ timor et spes ducunt ad caritatem 
per modum dispositionis/ 

To begin, therefore, with a less perfect motive, that of 
Fear ; the fear of impending judgment, terrible, yet just ! 
One might recall a time when he was certainly unprepared 
for that dread ordeal. Then let him say, 4 What if I died 
then? What should have been my sentence? Where 
should be my soul at this moment, and for eternity?* Let 
him weigh each word of the sentence casting him away 
from the face of Jesus to the company of devils, and say 
‘ Who has saved me from so dreadful a lot ? The great 
mercy of God! He had but to withdraw His hand and I 
should instantly have fallen under the Eternal Curse. Oh, 
what a mercy ! Thanks be to God ! And the Mercy of 
God is God Himself.’ 

Or, recalling the Parable of the Prodigal, he will see that 
same Divine Mercy, which is God Himself, not only sparing 
the sinner, but searching for him, and rejojcing when He 
finds him. Then let him think ‘ I am that sinner and 

1 Consider the imperfection of oar faculties wounded by sin, and our 

tendency to things sensible. 1 God [says St. Thomas] is most lovable in Himself 

. . . but not so to us by reason of the inclination ... to visible good things.' 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



worse ; and God has so dealt with me. Oh, the mercy of 
God, how amiable it shows Him ! How good is God ! 1 * * 

Or, again, selecting some stage or stages of the Passion, 
the Garden or the Pillar, the Protorium, the Way to 
Calvary, or Calvary itself ; and, using the questions recom- 
mended for meditations of this kind — Who? What? How ? 
Why ? — let him await the answer supplied by Faith, and 
dwell particularly on that to the question ‘ Why? * 4 For us, 
men, and for our salvation. Yes, for me, even me, poor, 
unworthy, ungrateful creature ! What love, what goodness ! 
No one but a God is capable of such goodness ! And 
He is God, One with the Father and the Holy Ghost from 
eternity and to eternity, and He has prepared a place for 
me in Heaven, and wishes me to be united with Him, and 
to share His happiness for ever. All this the Church teaches 

Thus we see how the imperfect conducts to the perfect. 
But more easily still can this be effected through the 
motive of gratitude. We think favourably of and admire 
those who have been good to us in the past, and 
from whom we hope good things in the future ; and God 
has been both to us, by action and by promise, in a super- 
eminent degree ; so that, grace assisting, we pass easily from 
the imperfect to the perfect — to admire and love Him for 
His own goodness, to love Him above all things and persons, 
which is charity. It will then easily be seen that the two 
things — the pure, disinterested love of God, and the desire 
of our happiness in Him — instead of being opposed, are 
rather helpful to each other . 1 

But though not taking as the motive any one attribute, 
but the 4 Complexio omnium ,’ etc., Le., Bonita* Divinia/\t 
would seem at least much to the purpose to bring out one 
or more before the mind that would call forth the best 
affections of the heart — say His Self-existence, Omnipotence, 
as seen in the visible world, the work of His hands, His Mercy 
and Beauty, the thought of which drew from St. Augustine 

1 Letiikhul, v')l. i, n. •)Hi aud fol. ; and St. Thomas 2*, 2**, q. 24, a, 9, sets 

down, a* the highest degree of charity, an ardent desire to be united with God, 

and possess Him in Heaven. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



that soul-stirring affection — 1 Oh, Beauty, ever ancient, 
always new : too late have I known Thee, too late have 
I loved Thee ! What are all earthly beauties compared 
with thee. They are but emanations fjom Thee, an un- 
failing source, undiminished, a boundless ocean of beauty 
and all perfections ! Thou art the uncreated goodness, God 
my God , “ Deus cordis mei, et pars mia Deus in aBternum.” 1 ’ 
Should any one, in reciting the formula commonly 
employed for eliciting the Act, doubt his own sincerity, fear- 
ing that his words are but words, let him mark the differ- 
ence between the love of creatures and the love of God. 
Creatures fall under the senses of the body, and in the love 
of tbem the senses as well as the will are-engaged. The 
emotional feeling within, the tear from the eye, and the 
warm expressions of endearment are the ordinary accom- 
paniments of profane love. Not so the love of God; we 
ought indeed to love with heart and soul and feelings, and 
with our whole being Him who is everything to us ; yet 
looking to essentials, this love is seated in the will, and 
one can love strongly and well without any tenderness 
or emotion. And let him mark again the second part, ‘ I 
firmly purpose/ etc. Is he determined never, through fear 
of evils however great, or hope of the highest earthly happi- 
ness, to turn his back on that God, his God f whose goodness 
he has been considering ; in other words never to offend 
Him wilfully by a mortal sin ? This is the test ; and if he 
can stand it he may rest content. Yet he must not apply 
too sharp a test in the form of a particular evil which, 
acting on the senses, might prove too much for his strength 
of will, and cause it to recoil. Would it not be tempting 
God to weigh against His friendship the delivery from 
torture or death, or the enjoyment of some great and lasting 
prosperity ? Such trials of love God is not likely to send or 
permit to happen ; they are imaginary, and in imaginary 
trials one must not hope for special supernatural assistance. 
We have said ‘never grievously to offend,’ etc. This is enough 
for the amicitia of charity; and he who can say it honestly is a 

1 Psalm lxxii, 

Digitized by A^OOQle 



true friend of God ; and His charity is perfect in kind. 
There is a higher, it is of those who purpose firmly against 
venial sin ; and a higher still, of those who purpose to live 
so united to God as to seek in all things His good pleasure . 1 

With reference to the formula for the Act of Charity 
and Contrition, we would, with all deference and with 
diffidence in our own judgment, remark that, in all prayer- 
books and catechisms, the motive is not made to precede 
the Act. Thus runs the formula — ‘ My God I love Thee 

above all things,’ then follows the motive ‘ because 

Thou art,’ etc. Is this as it should be? The motive is 
set down to influence the Act ; and can this be if the words 
corresponding to it are completed before any mention of the 
motive ? Might not this much be said ? Either the Act 
is in every case complete when the first part of the formula 
has been recited, or it is not. In the first case it is needless 
to formulate the motive ; in the second case the Act should 
follow, that is, be repeated. There is a priority of time 
between motive and act, one an exercise of the understanding, 
the other of the will, the former influencing and the latter 
being influenced. If the motive is to be set down at all, 
why, let it have its natural place. With a saint, whose mind 
is ever occupied with the thought of God’s goodness, the 
motive is ever present, and acts are elicited a thousand 
times a day. 

But with ordinarily good Christians the case is different ; 
though disposed to love God, and living habitually in His 
grace, their mind, distracted by many occupations, needs to 
be convinced that it may act upon the will, and hence the 
necessity of a motive indicated at least. No need, for such 
purpose, of any long process ; a prayerful raising of the 
soul with advertence to the motive as found in the formula, 
but in its proper place, followed by the Act, and the work is 
done. The mention alone of God’s goodness, and his claims 
upon our love, with the class in question, intelligent and 
good, recalls the teaching of faith and thus furnishes the 
motive. Hence, we would say, the importance of a formula 
following the natural order. 

1 Lemkhul, yoL i n. 320. 

Digitized by 



For such as need conversion through Contrition the 
process should be more elaborate, as seen already. God of 
course could effect it all in the shortest time ; but we should 
not expect miracles at His hands. Yet His mercy is like to 
a miracle — bearing with the sinner, inviting, and helping him 
to return to His embraces. He gives even to the hardened 
sinner, in the extremity we are contemplating, all the means 
of a true conversion ; prayer, to which He attaches His 
Omnipotence — 1 Whatsoever you shall ask . . . He will 
give . . . ' And His Word, of which He has said ‘ Are not 
my words as a fire [yes, able to inflame the coldest heart] 
and as a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces ? 11 Such 
strokes of this hammer are heard in these invitations * — ‘ If 
your sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow.’ 

* Come to me all you that labour and are burdened and 
I will refresh you.’ Such too the pitying remonstrances : — 
‘ Oh that they would be wise and provide for their last end.’ 

* Oh ye sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart ? 

Why do you love vanity and seek after lying ? ’ ‘ Why will 

you die, Oh house of Irsael?’ (Oh poor sinner ! die in your 
sins ?) What a power for the conversion of the most 
obdurate in the hands of a zealous priest, prayer and the 
Word of God, the Mother of Mercy invoked helping in the 
work? Powerful means and motives these to or towards 
Contrition, in the absence of the priest ; for they show 
Divine Mercy so far above the capability and even the 
understanding of man. If with such means as these 
available, the rock will not be broken, the sinner will not be 
contrite ; 2 if he dies in sin it is because he wills it ! 

Now, kind reader, if so far we are at agreement, it is an 
agreement as to the premises ; and the conclusions will, we 
hope, present less difficulty. These conclusions will concern 
ourselves personally ; then our functions in the pulpit ; and 
lastly in the confessional, but particularly at the bed-side of 
the dying. 

1. Ourselves .— It is a question of charity which should 

1 Jer. xxiii. 29. 

* Derive the word from its Latin root conterrv, contritum ; and compare the 
.heart broken with sorrow and the rock broken with the hammer, etc. 

Digitized by LxOOQLe 



begin at home, though it should not end there ; a question 
that leads, and imperatively, to introspection. Our Lord 
came to cast fire upon the earth, and wishes that it should 
be enkindled and kept burning in the hearts of all. What 
other is this than the fire of Divine Love? should we not 
then seek some signs of its indwelling in our souls ? We 
shall not seek for feelings — warm, or tender, or tearful — 
about God ; but should ask, what habitually are our thoughts 
and dispositions regarding Him? Do we regard Him as our 
Friend of friends whose interests we have at heart ; as our 
Father and the best of fathers whose paternal Heart we as 
children are afraid to sadden ? How are we affected by the 
outrages offered at home and abroad to the Majesty of God ? 
We know how the Psalmist was affected on the like 
occasions : — 4 Vidi praevaricautes et tabescebam.* 4 Opprobria 
exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt super me.* He so espoused 
the cause of God that he felt those outrages and insults as 
though they were offered to himself. Again, what interest 
do we take in missionary enterprise, by which God’s kingdom 
is extended, and His name glorified on earth as it is in 
heaven? The love of God, we have seen, is a fire, and zeal 
is the flame thereof ; if, then, our zeal is not manifested in 
our works or prayers, is it not to be feared that the fire, 
whose tendency is to break out, has no place within us. 
St. Teresa, in her Pater Noster % has said what amounts to 
this : — We cannot be certain that we love God with the love 
of friendship, because we cannot confer favours on Him, 
whilst upon our neighbour we can. If, then, we are showing 
marks of friendship to the neighbour for God, that cost us 
something — and the more the better — the thought is re- 
assuring, and would justify an appeal like St. Peter’s to the 
omniscience of our Lord, 4 Thou knowest that I love Thee.’ 
This should be sufficient for one’s peace of mind even at the 
dying hour; and to seek a greater certainty would be to 
leave no room for hope, which must go hand in hand with 
charity. An example confirmatory of this in the writer’s 
memory may be given here. An ecclesiastic of great learn- 
ing and virtue, Dr. A. F., in a dangerous illness was greatly 
troubled at the thought of judgment. But, added to the 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



ordinary succours of religioD, he had at his bed-side a priest 
of practical piety and good sense, who said : * Now if you 
had the choosing of your judge, and the whole world 
to select from, is there any one you would prefer to our 
Lord and Saviour.’ He answered promptly in the negative 
and was comforted. The soul emptied of creatures, and 
truthfully professing the love of preference, may cast itself 
confidingly and peacefully into the arms of its Judge. 
‘Love God, and do what you please.’ 1 * * * ‘ He that loves God 

with his whole heart fears neither death nor punishment, 
nor judgment nor hell; because perfect love gives secure 
access to God.' 1 

2. In the Pulpit. — Now, if charity is the one thing 
necessary, it needs not saying that it should be often heard 
from our pulpits. If St. John at Ephesus kept on repeating 
his exhortations on the second precept of the law, the first 
should be heard in season and out of season, even to the 
point of remonstrance. If the preacher is called a man of 
one idea, and the objectors speak the truth, it is well ; for 
this idea, got well into the heads of his hearers, and kept 
there, is all-sufficient. But the preacher will not do his part 
by eulogising charity in words of eloquence ; he must tell his 
hearers what it is, and the steps leading to its attainment. 
But this would be didactical, and the people expect a sermon. 
The question is about pastoral preaching, and the pastoral 
sermon from which the didactical element is excluded is but as 
the ‘.sounding brass,’ etc. It may, indeed, please a class of 
hearers who in a sermon, as in most other things, seek their 
pleasure rather than their profit. But the simple and the 
right-minded of every class, who would profit, are deprived 
of their spiritual food, with which the Church, by her 
councils, would supply them. 5 And might not the appre- 
hended dryness of such preaching (teaching rather) be 
relieved by a fervid peroration of, say, five minutes in a 
discourse of twenty-five ? 

1 St. Augustine. 

* Imitation of Ohrut, Book 1., ch 25. . A . 

s Council of Trent, seas. xxtv. chap. 4, confirming and adapting to the pre- 

sent time canons under Paul ILL 

Digitized by 



And if this manner of teaching is the thing needed for 
the adult congregation, much more for the congregation of 
little ones, in whom the Word is sure to fructify in fuller 
measure* Let the answers to the questions: ‘What is 
charity?’ 4 Why should we love God above all things?’ 4 How 
are we to love?* etc., be drawn out by the priest, as cate^ 
chist, in plain, intelligible language, suited to their capacity, 
i* !id made interesting by examples, and God will be better 
known, and, therefore, better loved — 4 Ignoti nulla cnpido 
Things visible, the attractions of the hour, will, unfortu- 
nately, often usurp the place of God in the souls of many ; 
but, the duty of instruction suitably discharged, the super- 
natural will, in the main, keep the ascendant, and the way 
be prepared for turning to God in love, and in sorrow for 
offending him. 

3. In the Confessional , etc. — Here, indeed, is the touch- 
stone of the zealous priest. Having brought his penitent 
to break with sin, and with all affection to it, and to turn to 
God in the hope of pardon, as unquestionably he is bound 
to do, will he stop there, content with initial love, on the 
very threshold of Contrition ? Theologians, even the most 
liberal, whose concern is, for the most part, to determine 
the minimum of disposition for the Sacraments, counsel ns 
to look higher; and if it were for themselves a question 
of the last Sacraments, we venture to assert they would 
apply the counsel to themselves, and reduce it into action. 
It were, indeed, cold and perfunctory to be contented 
with the beginning of love when the further step to love 
itself can, as we have seen already, be made so easily. 

But, suppose it is difficult, the difficulty cannot be 
evaded by the appointed dispenser of God’s graces. To gain 
the love of men our Lord shrank not from suffering and the 
Cross ; and through His Apostle we are exhorted to love 
God^since He first loved us. He came to cast fire upon 
this earth, and wishes it to be kindled in the hearts of all — 
no other than the fire of His love. To kindle up and spread 
this holy fire is a work most pleasing to every good Catholic, 
but for the priest it is simply a duty. This is a duty 
discharged in every work of the ministry zealously performed ; 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



but particularly in the confessional ; and still more parti- 
cularly on occasion of the last Sacraments. The penitent, 
suppliantly asking pardon through his priest, places his 
confidence and his soul in his hands. ‘ Father,’ he sayB, * I 
am a sinner, help me, pray for me, save my poor soul ! ’ No 
priest can deny those helps without failing in duty to God, 
and to that soul now given to his hands, to do for him all 
that is needful. He will, before concluding the process, heip 
his penitent to raise his attrition to the rank of contrition, 
and afterwards, suggesting briefly the motive, will make 
with him a fervent Act of Charity and Contrition. In case 
of the last Sacraments, he will make provision for the 
frequent repetition of these acts ; and, even with no other 
object, will repeat his visits. The physician does as much 
for his patient ; and, with an enemy awaiting his oppor- 
tunity against that soul, it were like a betrayal to dispose of 
it at a single visit. 

The question here being confined to the part Contrition 
has in reconciling the sinner, and justifying the just still 
more, we would suggest — seeing the importance of having 
the motive ready at hand, and lest anything important 
should be omitted — a prepared formula in outline for helping 
penitents. The intervals of such outline would, in using it, 
be filled up by the fervour of the moment. And not one 
but two or three formulas as the case might require; for 
we must gauge the capacity and education (spiritual educa- 
tion) as well as the dispositions of the subject. With some the 
subsidiary motive of fear should be but sparingly employed, 
and only as leading to gratitude for preservation from well- 
merited punishment. Most will be touched by presenting 
of the Crucifix with accompanying explanation, juxta 
captum; while ultimately all should be reminded of the 
Divinity of our Lord and His claims, as a Divine Person, to 
the best love and deepest sorrow of our heart. The subject 
thus prepared by prayer and consideration of the motive, 
let teacher and taught say conjointly the two-fold act, and a 
great work is done. 

But all this is hard and trying, and in the case of a 
hardened sinner, who for years has been a stranger to the 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



supernatural, may be called a hopeless task. Hard and 
trying , yes ; but hopeless , no. With God all things are 
possible; and He wishes the salvation of that hardened soul, 
and with that view has now placed it in your hands. Show 
him how to pray earnestly, confidently, perseveringly ; pray 
for him and with him, and hope that his sufficient grace will 
soon be efficacious ; and that, from initial love and attrition, 
he will rise to perfect love and contrition. The work is hard 
and trying, but the saving of a single soul is worth it all ; 
much more, and immensely more, the making it a perfect 
Christian. Work for which opportunities are afforded a 
hundred times a day throughout this land of ours ; and at 
which many a zealous priest is day by day 1 spending him- 
self and being spent/ Theirs is a silent work, and un- 
noticed by the worldly-minded. But if, instead of pointing 
heavenwards to men, and counselling resignation on earth, 
as did our Holy Father lately to the persecuted religious in 
France, they denounced the oppressor with no measured 
words, and counselled unlawful courses, their praise would 
be in the mouths of men. Now it is in heaven, where 
a crown is laid up for them with all who instruct many 
unto justice. 

To conclude. We have considered the important place 
contrition should hold in the daily life of every Christian. 
Every Christian is bound to aspire to the perfection suited 
to his state ; and charity is perfection for all states. But 
charity has its degrees — the lowest implying a sorrow for all 
mortal sin ; the next a sorrow for sin of every kind and 
degree. Seeing then that all have sinned, and are sinning, 
he who would aspire to perfection must aspire to contrition 
as well. We have considered, too, some very urgent needs 
for contrition as the one solitary means of recovering grace 
after mortal sin. And, to prevent the error of taking a 
word or formula for the thing itself, we have considered its 
nature; and have seen it is a sorrow arising from the 
thought of God’s goodness not excluding for ourselves (rather 
containing) the hope of enjoying Him. Thus hope and 
charity and contrition, and faith underlying all, work 
together for the good of those who will be saved. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Lastly, we have considered the Means of Contrition, first 
prayer, second meditation on the less perfect motives lead* 
ing np to the supreme object, the love of God for His own 
infinite goodness. This love is not seated in the feelings, 
which are bat accidents, bat in the will preferring God to 
all His creatures, and adhering to him at any and at every 
cost, and hating sin because it offends Him. With nothing 
less than this should we be contented. Such a love, reduced 
to an act, is of Divine precept, binding frequently through life 
and at the end of life. Nothing else can content our souls, 
created with a longing for happiness to be found in God 
alone. Worldlings will freely confess they have not found 
happiness in their idol ; the saints tell us they got a foretaste 
of it in loving God. They poured forth their souls in long- 
ings to enjoy Him : — ‘ What have I in Heaven or on earth 
but Thee.’ ‘ When shall I come and appear before the face 
of the Lord ! ’ In such earnest longings they saw not the 
terrors of Divine justice, and so passed peacefully on to the 
full enjoyment. It was the fulfilment in them of God's 
word : — 4 Perfect charity casteth out fear ’ And if we are 
wise we will in our measure be ever striving to do likewise. 

R. F. L. 

Von. x. 


Digitized by {jOOQle 

t 178 ] 



At a meeting of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, 
held at Maynooth, on ‘26th June, ultimo, the following 
resolution was unanimously adopted : — 

We have frequently urged His Majesty’s Government to 
make adequate provision for the spiritual needs of Catholic 
sailors in the Royal Navy, and, notwithstanding their repeated 
promises to do so, such adequate provision has not yet been 
made. We now deem it our duty to advise Catholic parents not 
to allow their children to join His Majesty 's ships until suitable 
arrangements shall be made to minister to the spiritual wants of 
Catholic seamen in the Fleet. 


Michael Cardinal Logue, Chairman. 

John, Bishop of Clonfert, 

Richard Alphonsus, Bishop of 
Waterford and Lismore, 




Procurator Generalis Congnis Sacerdotum SS. a Corde Iesu 
huic Sacrae Congni Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae 
exponit quod a plurimis annis in Gallia mos invaluerit erigendi 
stationes Viae Crucis cum crucibus ligneis supra quas, in con- 
junctione bracbiorum tabellae depictae mysteria consueta reprae- 
sentantes applicantur ; ita ut tantummodoextremitates bracbiorum 
crucis appareant. Addendum est quod in ipso actu erectionis 
istarura stationum Viae Crucis, jam tabellae cucibus adhaere- 

j- Secretaries. 

1 I ter urn proponitur hocce documeutum, u«omillis mendis pur gut am, et 
lain in praeeedinti Fuse. p. 123 editum. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Cum hisce de erecfcionibus sic factis confcroversia exorta sit, 
ad omne dubium tollendum a humillime quaerit orator : 

Num erectiones sfcationum Viae Crucis de quibus supra, validae 
et licitae sustineri valeant ? 

Sacra vero Congregatio proposito dubio, audito unius ex 
Consultoribus voto, respondendum mandavit : 

Affirmative prout exponitur : Verumtamen, cum juxta decreta 
(30 Jan. 1839; 23 Nov. 1878) Indulgentiae huius sacrosancti 
exeroitii crucibus tantum sint adnexae, S. C. vehementer inculcat 
ut nihil innovetur, sed antiqua et ubique recepta praxis servetur, 
quae est ut cruoes supra depictas tabulas integre conspicuae emi- 

Datum Bomae ox Secrria. ejusdem S. Cognis die 27 Martii, 

H L. M. Card. Pabocchi. 

L. itS. 

Franciscus Sogabo, Archiep. Amiden., Sccrius. 



Beatissime Pater, 

Veneziani Agostino Procurators Generale ad interim della 
Congregazione della Missions di S. Vincenzo de* Paoli, prostrato 
al bacio del S. P. espone quanto segue : 

V. S. con Breve specials in data del 1 Dicembre, 1892, si 
degnava di accordare ai Preti della Missions la facolta di benedire 
per le Figlie della Carita le corone coll’applicazione delle Indul- 
genze del SSmo. Rosario, ed aile stesse Figlie Carit& il privilegio 
di conseguire quests indulgenze anche quando per motivi di 
oarita non potessero recitare per intero il Rosario o lo dovessero 
interrompere. Ora essendo la corona delle Figile della Carita, per 
tradizione che risale alle origini dellTstituto, composta di sei decine 
come quella di S. Brigida, 6 sorto in alcuni Missionarii il dubbio se 
recitando con essa il Rosario, ne conseguano le Indulgenze. 

Pertanto ad acquietare gli spiriti e ad evitare rinconveniente 
di oambiar la corona tradizionale l’umile orators supplies istante- 
mente la S. V. a voler dichiarare che anche coH’uso di detta corona 
le Figlie della Carita possono conseguire le indulgenze del Rosario 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Domenicano, uniformandosi esse nel recitarlo alle regole seguite 
dai fedeli si in quanto all’ordine ed alia meditazione dei misteri 
ehe in quanto al numero delle decadi. 

Ex Secretaria S . Congrcgationia 
Induhjcntiis SS.quc Reliq. praepositae, die 8 Maii 1900. 

S. Congregatio, attento deoreto in una Urbis et Orbis sub die 
29 Februarii 1820, nee non attentis iis quae in Sylloge Indulgenti- 
arura vulgo Raccolta , leguntur (pag. 10, edit. 1898), declarat, 
Sorores in casu uti posse ad reoitandum Rosarium S. Dominioi, 
coronis Sanetae Birgittae sex decadibus constantibus. 

L. igi S. Ios. M. Coselli. Substi . 





Dileete Fili, salutem et Apostolioam Benediotionem. De 
ingenii doctrinaeque fructibus quos Nobis frequenter catholico- 
rum exhibet pietas, ii profeoto solent multo accidere gratiores qui 
ad illustranda documenta Nostra utiliter spec tent. Et peculiari 
quid$m gratia dignus est liber quem abs te nuper accepimus ; in 
quo ex disoiplina Angelici Doctoris, divini Spiritus admirabilem in 
animis iustis inhabitationem dilucida oopia exposuisti. Caput 
istud fidei catbolicae, sane praestantissimum piaeque consolationis 
abundans effectu, litteris Nos encyclicis Divinum illud munus 
sollertiae eorum valde commendavimus qui animis ad aeteraa 
excolendis pro officio dant operam. Aequissimum nempe est 
tantarum rerum ignorationem a populo christiano plane depelli ; 
atque adeo id enixe efficiendum ut altissimi dofium Dei unde com- 
plura manant et maxima beneficia, omnes religiose studeant et 
noscere et diligere et implorare. Cui assequendo proposito iam 
adiumentum non tenue ex libro tuo esse profectum, gratulamur 
tibi ; eoque deinoeps amplius profecturum esse speramus libentes 
et oupimus. Tuum porro obsequium erga auctoritatem Nostram 
tuumque in Nos more deditissimi filii animum oollaudantes, 
patemae benevolentiae testem et munerum auspicem divinorum. 
Apostolioam benediotionem tibi per am an ter impertimus. 

Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum die XX Februarii anno 
MDCCCCI, Pontificatus Nostri Vioesimo quarto. 

LEO PP. xm. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 







Dilecti Filii, salutem et Apostolicara benedictionem. Baecularis 
eventus faustitas, quae uobilem cohortem vestram hisce , diebus 
laetitia merito perfuudit, non ita oadit in rationem rerum vestra- 
rum, ut Nos etiam quodammodo non attingat, et ad incundos 
animi sensus non coinmoveat. Respicientes enim Nos spatium 
praeteriti temporis, et memona repetentes varia rerum events, 
quae huic Apostolicae Sedi Deo volente, vel secunda vel adversa 
acciderunt, animadvertimus vestros in munere decessores, quorum 
non pauci erant vobiscum cognatione et affinitate coniuncti, in 
assignata sibi a Pontifice statione digne permansisse. Enimvero 
unde vigesimo ineunte saeculo, cum nonnulli Quiritium Optimatea 
quo obsequium studiumque suum difticiliimis Ecclesiae temporibus 
Romano Pontifici testarentur, enixe, peterent a regnante Deces- 
sore Nostro Pio VII, ut se in numerum veterum excubiarum 
adsciscere vellet, et ille Pontifex libenter eorum optatis obsecun- 
dans in locum praetoriae Equitum turmae eos nobiles viros volens 
lubensque sufficeret, repente foeda ilia tempestas coorta est, qua 
fortuna Apostolicae Sedis, mox ad pristinum decus et splendorem 
reditura, iacuit aliquandiu inclinata ac pene eversa. Id temporis, 
ut memoriae posterorum proditum est, novi Equites, licet in 
militia tyrones, illustre dederunt specimen fidelitatis et virtutis ; 
maluerunt enim in Urbanam Arcem, quasi mancipia, detrudi, 
quam ab observantia desciscere, et fidem Pontifici semel datam 
violare. Cuius quidem laudis nemo vestrum est, dilecti filii, qui 
non sentiat quodammodo se esse participem, ideoque vos omne 9 
saecularia istiusmodi solemnia, velut gentilitia sacra, laeti facti- 
tatis. Quae virtus et fides in posterioribus etiam rebus gestis et 
in recentioribu 8 Ecclesiae acerbitatibus et luctibus luculenter ap- 
paruit, et Nos pro certo habemus fore ut unusquisque vestrum, si 
res postulet, eandem religionem Nobis eandem fidem servet, ac 
maiores vestri praestiterunt, et paris virtutis edat exempla. Ad 
N09 quod attinet, Decessorum Nostrorum supra dicti Pii VII, 

Digitized by L^OOQLe 



Leoms XII, Gregorii XVI et Pii IX, qui ordinem vestrum non 
pauois anxere iuribus et honoribus, vestigiis insistentes, volumus 
ut etiam per N03 aliqua vobis honorum fiat aooessio. Quapropter 
ne memoria huius fausti eventus, ut assolet in rebus humanis, cito 
intereat, singulari mnemosyno vos omnes donandos censuimus, 
quod vobis de Petri Cathedra, de Nobis egregie semper mentis, 
paternam etiam benevolentiam Nostrum cumulate testetur. Volu- 
mus igitur et Apostolica Nostra auotoritate deoemimus, ut 
proprium confletur ex argento numisma, cuius adversa pars Nos- 
trum imaginem referat dextrorsum respicientem, aversa duos 
hAbeat oleae et quaercus ramos, quibus in mediis legatur titulus 
1 Leo XIII . P. M. Cmtodibus. Corporis . Nobilibus - Anno . C. - 
Ab. Eorum . Cohorte - A. Pio VII . Dec, Suo - Gonstituta .* 
Peculiari huiusmodi honoris insigni, quod a taenia serica, altemis 
distincta lineis caeruleis et rubris, dependeat, decoretur pectus 
Protectorum omnium Nostri lateris, et eorum nimirum, qui hoc 
honorifico munere funguntur, et eorum, qui illo, dum sivit aetas, 
perfuncti sunt. Haec ultro concedimus non obstantibus con- 
trariis quibuscumque. 

Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum sub Anulo Piscatoris 
die XI Maii MDCCCCI. Pontificatus Nostri Anno Vicesimo 

Alois Card. Macchi. 

L. S. 




1 Sacerdos indutus pluviali albo vel sine casula, cum miniatris 
similiter indutis, stans in cornu Epistoiae dicit in tono feriali ’ : 
V. Adjutorium nostrum iu nomine Domini. 

R. Qui fecit coelam et terrain, 

V. Dominus vobiscum. 

R. Et cum spiritu tuo. 

1 Haec formula est inserenda in Appendice RitunliB Mmorum. Vid p 144 
aliam formulam inserendam in Appendice Ritu&lis Romani. A r . D. 

Digitized by {jOoq Le 




Deus, a quo omne bonum surait initium et semper ad potiora 
progrediens percipit inorementum : concede, quaesumus, suppli- 
cantibus nobis ; ut quod ad laudem nominis tui inchoare aggredi- 
mur, aeternae tuae sapientiae munere, perducatur ad terminum. 
Per Christum Dominum nostrum. 

E. Amen. 

* Hie celebrans incensum ponit in thuribulo, et Diaconus, 
dicto " : Munda cor meum, 1 ac benediction® accepts-, cantat 
Evangelium * : 

\ Sequentia sancti Evangelii secundum Matthaeum (Matt. 6 c). 

E. Gloria tibi, Domine. 

In ille tempore : Dixit Jesus discipulis suis : Nemo potest 
duobus dominis servire : aut enim unum odio habebit, et alterum 
diliget ; aut unum sustinebit, et alterum conteninet. Non 
potestis Deo servire et mammonae. Ideo dico vobis, ne solliciti 
sitis animae vestrae quid induamini. Nonne anima plus est quam 
esca, et corpus plus quam vestimentum ? Eespicite volatilia coeli, 
quoniam non serunt, neque metunt, neque congregant in horrea, 
et Pater vester coelestis pascit ilia. Nonne vos magis plures 
e9tis illis? Quis autem vestrum, cogitans, potest adjicere ad 
staturam suam cubitum unum ? Et de vestimento quid solliciti 
estis ? Considerate lilia agri, quomodo ‘crescunt ; non laborant, 
nequenent. Dico autem vobis quoniam nec Salomon in omni 
gloria sua coopertus est sicut unum ex istis. Si autem foenum 
agri, quod hodie est, et eras in clibanum mittitur, Deus sic vestit, 
quanto magis vos modicae fidei ? Nolite ergo solliciti esse 
dicentes : Quid manducabimus, aut quid bibemus, aut quo operie- 
mur? Haec enim omnia gentes inquirunt. Scit enim Pater 
vester, quia his omnibus indigetis. Quaerite ergo primum 
regnum Dei, et justitiam ejus, et haec omnia adjicientur vobis. 

E. Laus tibi, Christe. 

* Finito Evangelio, celebrans a Diacono incensatur : deinde 
vertit se ad altare in eodem cornu Epistolae, ac dicit in tono 
feriali ’ : 

V. Justus germinabit sicut lilium. 

E. Et florebit in aeternum ante Dominuna. 

V. Domine, exaudi orationem meam. 

E. Et clamor meus ad te veniat. 

V. Dominus vobiscum. 

B. Et cum spiritu tuo. 

Digitized by 




Deus, Creator et Conservator generis humani sanotae puritatis 
amator, dator gratiae spiritualis et largitor aetemae salutis, 
bene»J«dictione tua sancta, beneigidic haec lilia, quae pro gratiis 
exsolvendis, in honorem sanoti Antonii Confessoris tui, suppiioes 
hodie tibi praesentamus, et petimus benediei. Infunde iiiis, salu- 
tari signaeulo sanctissimae ij* Crucis, rorem coelestem. Tu benig- 
nissime, qui ea ad odoris suavitatem, depellendasque infirmitates, 
humano usui tribuisti ; tali virtnte reple et oonfirma, ut quibus- 
cumque morbis adliibita, seu in domibus, looisque posita, vel cum 
devotione portata fuerint, intercedente eodem famulo tuo Antonio, 
fugent daemones continentiam salutarem inducant, languores 
a vert ant, tibique servientibus pacem, et gratiam concilient. Per 
Christum Dominum nostrum. 

R. Amen. 

4 Posito incenso in thuribulo, Saeerdos aspergit lilia dicens ' : 
Asperges me, 1 sine psalmo, et thurificat ter, nihil dicens ; postea 
descendit ad infimum gradum altaris, et singiflis genuflexis, can- 
tores inton ant Responsorium ’ : 

Si quaeris miracula, 

Mors, error, calamitas, 

Daemon, lepra fugiunt, 

Aegri surgunt sani. 

Cedunt mare, vincula, 

Membra resque perditas 
Petunt et accipiunt 
Juvenes et cani. 

Pereunt pericula, 

Cessat et necessitas : 

N arrant hi qui sentiunt, 

Dicnnt Paduani. 

Cedunt mare, vincula, 

Membra resque perditas 
Petunt et accipiunt 
Juvenes et cani. 

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui sancto. 

Cedunt mare, vincula, 

Membra resque perditas 
Petunt et accipiunt 
Juvenes et cani. 

V. Ora pro Nobis, beate Antoni. 

Ul digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi,. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 




Subveniiat plebi tuae, quaesumus, Domini, praeolari Confes- 
soris tni beati Antonii devota et iugis depreoatio : quae in praesenti 
nos tua gratia dignos effioiat, et in futuro gaudia mereatur aeterna. 
Per Christum Dominum nostrum. 

R. Amen. 

1 Pit distribute liliorum iuxta morem ; ea finita, Sacerdos lavat 
manus el linteo abstergit, etc. Caeremonia finitur cum benedic- 
tione, quam Sacerdos populo impertitur cum reliquia S. Antonii.’ 


Rmus. Pater Fr. Petrus ab Arce Papae, Procurator Generalis 
Ordinis Minorum, Sanctissimo Domino nostro Leoni Papae XIII 
humillime exposuit, in quibusdam sui Ordinis Provinciis pium 
iamdudum invaluisse morem, ut quotannis, idibus Iuniis, qua die 
sancti Antonii Patavini solemnitas agitur, lilia in ipsiusmet hono- 
rem benedicenda offerantur. Nostra hac aetate, cum eiusdem 
sancti Confessoris cultus feliciter increverit, praesertim per effusae 
illius erga pauperes charitatis imitationem, tarn pius eiusmodi 
usus de liliis benedicendis magis in dies adaugetur. Quo vero 
ad earn benedictionem impertiendara in cunctis, ubi libuerit, 
ecclesiis ad Pranciscalem Minorum Ordinem ubique terrarum 
pertinentibus uniformitas habeatur, idem Rmus. Pater supremae 
Apostolicae Sedis approbationi ritus vigentis ac formulae schema 
demississime subiicit : quibus die festo S. Antonii legitime Fratres 
Minores in suis ecclesiis deinceps utantur. 

Itaque exhibitum benedictionis ritum ac formulam, cum Emus, 
et Rmus. Dnus. Cardinalis Vincentius Vannutelli relator in Ordi- 
nario Sacrorum Rituum Coetu, ad Vaticanum subsignata die coadu- 
nato, ad iuris tramitem proposuerit ; Emi. et Rmi. Patres Sacris 
tuendis Ritibus praepositi, omnibus mature perpensis, auditoque 
R. P. D. Ioanne Baptista Lugari, S. Fidei Promotore, rescriben- 
dum censuerunt : * Pro gratia et ad Emum. Ponentum cum Pro- 
motore Fidei.’ Die 5 Februarii 1901. 

Deraum hisce omnibus Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Leoni 
Papae XIII per infrascriptum Cardinalem Sacrorum Rituum Con- 
gregation! Praefectum relatis ; Sanctitas Sua sententiam Sacri 
eiusdem Consilii ratam habens, ritum, ac formulam benedicendi 
lilia in honorem S, Antonii Patavini, prout huic praeiacent 
Pecreto, benign e approbare dignata est indulsitque, ut eiusmodi 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



formulam, Rituali Ordinis Minorum inserendam, Fratres in 
posterum ad hi here valeant in liliorum benediction©, quotannis die 
festo eiusdem sancti Confessoris impertienda. Contrariis non 
obstantibus quibuscumque. 

Die 26, iisdem mense et anno. 

D. Card. Ferkata, Praef. 

D. Panici, Archiep. Laodicen., Secret . 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

[ 187 ] 


The Catholic Creed. By Very Rev. J. Procter, S.T.L. 
Second Edition, revised. Art & Book Co. Price, 3s. 6 d. 

To the high praise which on all hands greeted the first edition 
of Father Procter’s well-reasoned and well-written book, and to 
the words of warm commendation with which its many merits 
were appraised when noticed in the I.E. Record twelve months ago, 
we shall add nothing by way of criticism, but, by way of favour 
for a work that sets forth in simple eloquence and persuasiveness 
the beauty of Christian dogma, we would bespeak for the new 
revised edition an ampler measure of Catholic support and a 
readier circulation than even was accorded it on its first 

Mart Ward : A Foundress of the Seventeenth Century. 
By Mother M. Salome. Burns & Oates. Price, 5s. 

It is pretty generally admitted, we think, that one of the most 
pressing needs of the Catholics of these countries is a healthy and 
interesting literature as specific against the frivolous, and but too 
often, vile and dangerous productions, which are daily issuing 
from a corrupt press. Mother Salome is cognisant of the fact, 
and besides honouring her country-woman, has done her part to 
meet the difficulty. And, in our opinion, she has done it well. 
Beginning at the cradle, she traces the fortunes of that long and 
active life in an unpretentious but attractive manner, and the 
side-lights thrown on the civil and religious history of that critical 
period, show us that there were in England people who had 
the faith, and who were prepared, in testimony thereto, to 
relinquish all man holds most dear. From the nature of the case, 
we should expect a life like this to contain a good deal of matter 
for which the ordinary reader would have no relish, but the 
authoress has exercised her tact in excluding everything of a 
technical character, especially where canon law or theology should 
play an active part. We, therefore, fully adopt the criticism of 
the Bishop of Newport who says, in his introduction : — 1 1 cannot 
imagine any story more interesting, more touching, more 

Digitized by 




stimulating, to Catholic girls of the present day than that which is 
told in these pages of the noble way iD which a daughter of 
England’s old faith and ancient blood rose to meet the storm and 
danger of her times, and, whilst giving her whole heart to God, 
dedicated her life to her faith and her country.* 

P. V. H. 

Life of the Very Rev. Felix de Andreis, C.M. First 
Superior of the Congregation of the Mission in the 
United States. With an Introduction by the Right 
Rev. John J. Kain, Archbishop of St. Louis, Mo. 
St. Louis, Mo. : B. Herder. 

This is a very interesting and a very edifying biography of one 
of the Catholic pioneers of the United States. We are told that 
it is compiled from sketches written by Mgr. Rosati, the first 
bishop of St. Louis, the colleague and successor of Father de 
Andreis. It is clear that the sketch is either a translation of the 
Italian notes of Mgr. Rosati by someone who has not a command 
of first class English nor the gift of adapting Italian ways of 
saying things to ours, or else that Mgr. Rosati’s sketches were 
written in English before he had thoroughly mastered the 
language. The defects of style are well compensated for by the 
interesting and edifying contents of the book. 

Exposition of Christian Doctrine. By a Seminary 
Professor. Part III. — Worship. Philadelphia: J. J. 
M‘ Vey. $2.25. 

Whether the wide range of the subject forbids it, or whatever 
else may be the source of the defect, one will not find amongst 
recent publications, many cxjnsts of Catholic doctrine, that are 
at once well-knit and comprehensive, that fairly exhaust the 
theme and yet be of sustained interest throughout. They seem, 
inevitably, to group themselves either as eloquent apologies or as 
what are but transfigured catalogues of dogmas, with but a meagre 
number in the intervening stages. Books will appear, the materials 
fused into a connected whole, organised and thoughtful, stamped 
with the personality of the author ; works to satisfy from the 
harmony of the parts and of the diction, yet sure to leave a 
vague unsatisfied feeling of want of definition of clearly marked 

Digitized by Le 



individualized treatment. Or they will come forth a sort of magni- 
fied guide book, mere lists of propositions, rigorously classified and 
sub-divided, clear indeed and solid in their teachings, sympathetic 
in their spirit, but smacking in their English dress of the dreariness 
of the musty tomes whence they seem to have been straightway 
transferred. The book under review belongs to the latter class, 
but is of a type superior to its fellows. There is not that weariness 
of spirit waiting on its perusal. It is the third and last part of a 
course of religious instruction prepared for the use of, and under 
the patronage of the De la Salle Brothers. Meaning by worship 
‘the sum of those means by which we are to honour God and 
sanctify ourselves,’ it treats for 800 well-printed pages, by way of 
question and answer, of Grace, Prayer, Sacraments and the Liturgy. 
The doctrine therein set out is abundant, solid, and accurate ; the 
positions as a rule clearly mapped out and qualified, expressed in 
precise terms in English of much purity, and the whole is leavened 
by a high Catholic spirit of deference to authority and of reverence. 
The setting of the parts is well-planned. Summaries and skilful 
analyses at the ends relieve the tedium of the chapters while giving 
them a unity and a system. Some defects there are amidst much 
good work ; mere negative blemishes that seem but the necessary 
limits of an attempt to traverse at an even, plodding pace so vast 
a field. Some minor details are excessively developed, and that 
at the expense of root-doctrines, with a certain loss of proportion 
and a possible misleading of those who are unskilled in Theology, 
and who may measure the certainty and importance of a dogma 
by the volume of treatment accorded it. It seems also a waste 
of labour, and a snare for the unwary, to bring in the divisions 
and sub-divisions that in many matters theologians have devised 
for offensive and defensive purposes alone, seeing that in every in- 
stance the author has wisely shunned the battle-ground of domestic 
controversy. Exception might be taken to the absolute form in 
which a few sentences picked out at random, are worded. ‘ The 
end of all the commandments of God is to preserve sanctifying 
grace,' p. 49 ; ‘ Is the true faith requisite for the valid reception 

of the Sacraments? No, exoept for penance,’ p. 177; ‘The 
interpretive intention is sufficient for the valid reception of the 
holy Eucharist,' p. 176 ; ‘ Why is sufficient grace so called ? 
.... is so called because it does not realise the effect in view of 
which it is given,' p. 23. Notwithstanding these minor matters, 
the work well deserves the words of praise of the Bishop of 

Digitized by ^ooQle 



Maurinne : ‘ The catechist who is thoroughly acquainted with 
the doctrine contained in this course of religious instruction will 
give lessons that are sound and fruitful ; his words will be that 
seed, which falls on good ground and produces fruit a hundred- 
fold.* Priests, also, who may like a well-Englished version of 
the theological dictates of their college days, would find the 
work useful. 

The Scale of Perfection. Written by Walter Hilton. 
With an Essay on the Spiritual Life of Medieval 
England. By the Rev. J. B. Dalgairns, of the Oratory. 
A New Edition. London : Art and Book Company. 

The publishers of this edition of the Scale of Perfection have 
not much to boast of beyond the mechanical skill displayed in the 
printing of the volume. There is nothing in the new edition to 
distinguish it from the previous one. It seems to be purely and 
simply a financial venture. It would, however, in our opinion, 
prove a more successful venture if the publishers had asked 
someone to edit the work — to give us some fuller account of 
Hilton himself than that which is to be got in the essay of 
Father Dalgairns, to correct the inaccuracies and modify the 
coarseness of what we may almost call the translation from the 

Every nation has its own predilections, even in matters of 
devotion, at least in so far as the form is concerned. The 
substance is the same for all Catholics. Canon Hilton’s work 
seems to us particularly suited to the people for whom it was 
written ; but, unlike the Imitation and the Introduction to a 
Devout Life, it does not contain the note of universal suitability. 
It appeals to the best instincts of the English nature in language 
sometimes remarkably beautiful, at other times, as it would 
appear to us, not quite so happy. As a spiritual work, how- 
ever, it has, with Father Augustine Baker’s Sancta Sophia , its 
recognised place in the history of Ascetic Theology. It is well 
that it should be still available, although we think that modem 
Catholics will prefer to meditate in books of more recent origin. 

J. B. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



The Life of Mother Mary Baptist Russell, Sister of 
Mercy. By her Brother, the Rev. M. Russell, S.J. 
New York : The Apostleship of Prayer Press, 1901. 

A very gifted member of a highly-gifted and distinguished 
family is presented to us in these pages. The glorious faith that 
has been, as it were, the guiding star of the Russell family in 
these countries, would have been imperfect if it had not sent some 
of its members to those regions in which earnest and energetic 
labourers are so much needed. The country that sends out mis- 
sionaries is doubly rewarded ; the family that sends them out is 
specially blesdhd. Bonum cst sui diffusivum , and the best proof 
of a deep and ardent faith is the desire to spread it and strengthen 
it in lands where it is either unknown or not yet flourishing in the 

Mother Mary Baptist Russell was a strong and noble character. 
When once the sphere of her activity was marked out and recog- 
nized she cast no 4 longing lingering look behind,* but pursued 
her way steadily and persistently until she had filled up a lifetime 
of good and great works. The narrative of Mother Baptist’s life 
is simply and unaffectedly told, and the many sidelights the little 
work lets in on the aims and achievements of several of her 
relatives are full of interest. Wo sincerely hope that the Russell 
stock may prosper, and that the now generations may be worthy 
of the old ones. We could wish them nothing better. 

J. P. H. 

Hymnus ‘Pange lingua/ XII. modulis diversis vocibus 
aequalibus concinendus comitante Organo (ad libitum) 
addito Hymno Sti Tbomae Aquinatis ‘Adoro te.* 
Auctore P. Griesbacher. Opus 42. Ratisbon, 1900, 
Coppenrath. Score and two separate Voice Parts. 

Twelve settings of the Hymn ‘ Pange lingua ’ and one of the . 
‘ Adore te ,* all for equal voices. Of the twelve settings of the 
Pange lingua two are for one part, and two for two parts with 
organ ; three are for three parts, four for four parts, and one for 
five parts with organ ad lib . The five part composition may also 
be rendered in three parts. The Adoro te is for three parts, with 
a fourth part (Alto II.) and organ ad lib. We have no hesitation 

Digitized by 


the irISh Ecclesiastical record 

in describing all the compositions as model settings, and hope 
that they will be frequently performed by choirs of nuns and 
similarly constituted choirs. 

II. B. 

Plain Sermons. By the Rev. R. D. Browne. Second 
Edition. London : R. and T. Washbourne, 18, Paternoster- 

A useful collection of sermons on the 1 Fundamental Truths 
of the Catholic Church,’ a setting forth of thought and doctrine 
very direct, simple, practical, and, as far as possible, in the words 
of Sacred Scripture. , This is the praise of the volume. 

J. W. M. 

Missa in honorkm S. Benedicti, ad duas voces aequales 
concinendo organo. Composuit Herc-Kerle. Ratisbon, 
1900. Coppenrath. Score and separate Voice Parts. 

A two-part Mass of orthodox style. The melodies are natural 
and healthy. Contrapuntal devices are used moderately. We 
should not consider the composition as a work of the very highest 
merit. But as it is fairly easy, it can be well recommended. 

H. B. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

Vt ChruHmni dm *t Rgmmnt tilt*." " As you are children of Christ, so be you children of Rome.* 
EuDtciu S. /fe*rws& InUbro Armacano , fol 9 

The Irish 

Ecclesiastical Record 

9 ffiintijlg Journal, unber ©piscopal Sanction. 
«"*“'] SEPTEMBER, l 9 oi. [ 

Value in Moral Theology and Political Economy. 

Rev. T. Slater , S.J., Si. Beano's, North Wales. 

The Relation of Ethics to Religion. 

W. Vesey. Hague, M.A., Dublin. 

The Moral Training of Children. 

Rev. R. E. Fitzhenry, M.SS., D.Ph., Enniscorthy. 

Dr. Salmon’s < Infallibility.’ 

Very Rev. Dr. Murphy, V.F., Macroom. 

The Trials of some Irish Missionaries. 

Rev. /antes P. Rushe, O.D.C., Dublin. 


"Beatification and Canonization of the Blessed Emilte de Rodat- Does Omission of Penance 
Affect Validity of Dispensation? Does Wilful Omission of Penance Affect Validity of 
Dispensation ? Hie Mass of * Refugium Psccaiorum * in Paschal Time. 

Notices of Books. 

A Mediaeval Hero of Carmel. Sermodh of Dr. Mortality. 

Nihil Obstat. 

Censor Dtp, 


Arckut, A DuMmm 
Htbtmmmt Pnimm, 

BROWNE ic NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


SUBSCRIPTION : Tweht Shilling* pgr Annum, /Vs* Ft**, Puymblt in mdtmnet 


Digitized by 







ITAIi, £1,500,000. 

rcnsroa, £ase,ooo. 



Mm* *■ " ■■** ' Fwrmr* tf 






Jj^rrrrr'™* LoHMALn ikJUABB, HOBTH. <**-«. BOOTH MALI. 

^ TAmT> Q.MXU.T lUMnr. 

Private Residence for Cure of Excessive Use of 

Apeetaf Treatment for Afooholkt O/seasee ha* been netwWlj 
'in Glasgow duo* August, tljl ; la DUBLIN since August, 1899, 

Duration of Treatmeat-THREE WEEKS ONLY. 

7«rm* mmd mil *T «*« M-mmftr «r S~r * my. 




AU strictly 


By every 


Prices from 

£10 to 300 Guineas, 

By every 


Prices from 

6 to soo Oniseas. 




Prices from 

5 to 150 Guineas. 


Applied to all Inatramaatw 
from 10 /* per Month. 

OM Piste ms4e Eqasl to New st Smell Cost* 0r4eee sn4 BmqmUte* 
receive teamed iste sn4 cental irtirtMa 







T HE price of a thing is the expression in money of its 
value. Bat what is value ? What is it that makes 
a pair of boots sell for sixteen shillings in a certain 
place on a fixed day? The question is one of 
primary importance in the science of Political Economy. 
Jevons 1 quotes with approval the following words of Mill : — 

Almost every speculation respecting the economical interests 
of a society thus constituted, implies some theory of value ; the 
smallest error on that subject infects with corresponding error all 
our other conclusions ; and anything vague or misty in our con- 
ception of it, creates confusion and uncertainty in everything else. 

The theory of value is picturesquely said by a foreign 
writer to be the dragon which guards the entrance to 
economic science ; while another declares that he who 
understands value, understands half of the difficulties of the 
science of Economics.’ If the notion of value is funda- 
mental in Economics, it is of great importance, to say the 
least, in Moral Theology, and particularly in questions con- 
cerning justice and contracts. It may be of interest to 
inquire what economists have to say on a subject which 
specially belongs to their province, and to compare it with 
the received doctrines of Moral Theology. According to 
a recent writer, economists have shown the teaching of 

1 Theory of Political Economy , p. 80. 

9 0. Antoine, S.J., Economic Socialc, p. 253. 


Digitized by 



theologians on the point to be chimerical and absurd : and 
as I propose to make the words of this writer the basis of 
my remarks, I will quote him at length : — 

In modern times the form of economic doctrine has been 
affected by the fact that it has been so much discussed by men 
who were accustomed to deal with physical and mathematical 
problems, and who brought their habitual methods of reasoning 
to bear on the phenomena of supply and demand. In a similar 
fashion the economic doctrine of the thirteenth century in 
Christendom was affected, as far as its form was concerned, by 
the engrossing studies of the time ; economic problems were dis- 
cussed by men who were habituated to the methods of metaphysics. 
In accordance with current modes of thought, they tried to deter- 
mine an ideal standard which should be realised in particular 
transactions, and sought for a definite conception of a 1 just price ; ’ 
the practical inquiries then resolved themselves into means for 
discovering the just price of each particular thing. From the 
modern point of view this whole quest was chimerical : prices are 
always fluctuating, and must, from their very nature, fluctuate. 
According to the 1 plenty or scarcity of the time ’ there will be 
great differences in the quantities available, and, therefore, in the 
relative values of wheat, cloth, coal and commodities of every 
sort. We know, too, that the commodity used for money must 
vary in value from time to time, and that, therefore, there must 
be continual fluctuations not only in values but in prices as well. 
The attempt to determine an ideal price implies that there can 
and ought to be stability in relative values, and stability in the 
measure of values, which is absurd. 

The mediaeval doctrine and its application rested upon another 
assumption, which we have outlined. Value is not a quality 
which inheres in an object, so that it shall have the same worth 
for everybody ; it arises from the personal preferences and needs 
of different people, some of whom desire a given thing more and 
some less, some of whom want to use it in one way and some in 
another. Value is not objective — intrinsic in the object— but sub- 
jective, varying, with the desires and intentions of the possessors 
or would-be possessors ; and beaause it is thus subjective, there 
cannot be a definite ideal value, which every article ought to possess, 
and still less a just price as the measure of that ideal value . 1 

According to Dr. Cunningham, therefore, the mediaeval 
theory of a just price for everything, and the mediaeval concept 
of value have been shown to be absurd and untenable by 
modem economic science. The schoolmen of the middle 

1 Dr. Cunningham, Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects, 1900 p. 78. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 


ages, habituated to the study of metaphysics, looked upon 
value as a quality intrinsic to the thing itself. To them it 
was something objective, definite, stable, and fixed ; and so 
the measure of value, or price, was something stable and 
fixed also. 

On the contrary, the doctrines of modern economic 
science have been formulated by men accustomed to deal 
with the physical and mathematical sciences. These men 
have brought their strictly scientific methods to bear on the 
economic problems of supply and demand. They have 
taught us that the medieval quest after a just price for com- 
modities was as chimerical as the quest after the San Grail. 
Taught by them we now know that prices are not stable 
and fixed, but are always fluctuating, and must of their very 
nature fluctuate. The plenty or scarcity of the time will 
affect the quantities of the available commodities, and so 
will affect the relative values. We now know that money 
itself, the measure of value, is subject to the same economic 
laws as other commodities, and that it fluctuates in value as 
they do. So that the attempt of the schoolmen to arrive 
at a just price for each particular thing involved the two 
absurdities of supposing that there can be stability in 
relative values, and stability in the value of money. 

Let us see what the schoolmen really did teach about 
the just price of commodities. It is easy to state some 
absurd theory, ascribe it to the metaphysical scholastics of 
the middle ages, and then proceed to demonstrate its 
absurdity. It is a more scientific method of procedure first, 
as the scholastics were fond of doing, to make sure of the 
fact — Primo , quaritur utrum sit . 

Molina, one of the great doctors on justice, will tell us 
what the common teaching of the schoolmen concerning the 
just price of commodities really was. Almost any other of a 
score of scholastic theologians would serve our purpose 
equally well, and I shall refer to one or two others in the 
course of my remarks, but in the main I propose to follow 
Molina. The difference between the date at which he lived 
and the thirteenth century, which Dr. Cunningham has 
specially in view, need not trouble us, for there was no 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



change of doctrine in the meantime ; Molina’s teaching is 
merely that of St. Thomas somewhat amplified. 

This scholastic doctor then is careful in the first place to 
say what the just price is not derived from. It is not, he 
says, to be measured by the excellence of things according 
to their own nature and intrinsic qualities, but according as 
they serve man’s use and benefit. A mouse considered in its 
own nature is a more excellent thing than corn, but mice are 
worthless, while com, which serves man’s necessities, has its 

However, he proceeds, the price of a thing does not depend 
merely upon its usefulness for supplying man’s necessities, 
but it depends a very great deal upon the estimation which 
men commonly choose to have of it with reference to its use. 
Thus the just price of a gem, which is for ornament only, is 
greater than that of a large quantity of corn, wine, meat, 
cloth, and horses. And among the Japanese a piece of rusty 
iron or cracked pottery is of immense value on account of its 
antiquity ; while among us it is worth nothing at all. And 
mere ornaments of coloured glass have a far higher price 
among the Ethiopians than gold, which they exchange for 
them. Now all this is brought about solely by the common 
estimation in which things are held in the place where they 
are exchanged, so that such trafficking is not to be condemned, 
though the want of culture and the manners of such peoples 
are sometimes laughable. 

Bo that the just price of a thing depends a great deal 
upon the common estimation of men in any place; and 
when without fraud or any unfair dealing, a commodity is 
commonly sold at a certain price in any place, that may be 
considered the just price, as long as the circumstances which 
cause prices to vary remain unchanged. The Roman Civil 
Law 1 and the common opinion of doctors agree on this 

But it must be observed, adds Molina, that a great 
many circumstances alter the prices of commodities. Thus 
scarcity makes the just price rise, while plenty makes it fall ; 

1 L. Pntia rei'um t Dig. ad legem Falcidiam. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 


the greater number of competing buyers at one time than 
at another, or their eagerness to buy, makes prices rise, on 
the other hand the fewness of buyers makes them fall ; the 
greater demand at one time than at another, while the 
supply remains constant, as of horses in time of war, makes 
prices rise. The scarcity of money in any place makes the 
price of other things fall, while abundance of money makes 
the price of other commodities rise. For the less the supply 
of money in any place the greater its value, and thus many 
more other goods are bought with the same sum. The 
manner of sale, too, alters the price, as we see in sale by 
auction, or when a man is anxious to find buyers and seeks 
them, or in sale by retail . 1 

The just price which we have been considering was 
called by some theologians, following Aristotle, the natural 
price ; not, as Molina is careful to explain, because it did not 
depend largely on men’s estimation, nor because it was not 
very inconstant and changeable, but to distinguish it from 
the legal price, which was settled for some commodities by 
law. Inasmuch as the natural, or vulgar price as it was 
also called, depended upon men’s estimation, wants, and 
desires, which are very various, it could not be a quantity 
exactly determinate and precisely defined, it necessarily 
admitted of a certain latitude ; and so theologians distin- 
guished the highest, the lowest, and the middle price, and 
taught that justice would be done if the seller kept within 
those limits . 2 

All this, even in the light of modern economic doctrines, 
seems eminently practical and thoroughly in keeping with 
common sense ; I fail to detect in it anything that savours 
of the ‘ metaphysical,’ if that term is intended by Dr. 
Cunningham to mean unreal and unpractical. The whole 
point of the teaching of the theologians lies in this, that 
there is such a thing as a fair and reasonable price for com- 
modities, in which English law and English juries agree 
with them, and that it is matter of justice to keep to 

1 Molina, Dc Justitia , tract ii., disp. 348. 

1 Ibid, dip. 347. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



it in contracts. The scholastics certainly knew as well as 
the modern economist that prices are always fluctuating; 
they knew that the plenty or scarcity of the time has great 
influence on the relative values of commodities of every 
kind ; they knew of what is now called the law of supply 
and demand ; they even knew that money is exposed to 
constant variations in value, and that it would be absurd to 
look for stability either in relative values, or in the measure 
of values. In fact they knew all that Dr. Cunningham has 
taken for granted that they did not know. 

From what has already been said, it is quite clear also, 
in spite of what Dr. Cunningham seems to imply, that the 
scholastics knew that 1 value is not a quality which inheres 
in an object, so that it shall have the same worth for every- 
body/ Molina expressly states that it arises from the 
preferences and needs of different people, with their different 
desires and wants. As we shall presently see they unani- 
mously denied that the seller can charge for any special 
individual advantage which may accrue to the buyer from 
the bargain ; thus clearly supposing that social and individual 
value w T ere two very different things. However, a difference 
between the scholastic doctrine on value and modern 
theories is touched upon, when Dr. Cunningham proceeds 
to say : — 

Value is not objective — intrinsic in the object — but subjective, 
varying with the desires and intentions of the possessors or 
would-be possessors ; and because it is thus subjective, there 
cannot be a definite ideal value, which every article ought to 
possess, and still less a just price as the measure of that ideal 

According to modern theories then, value — exchange 
value is meant’ — ismerely subjective, varying with the desires 
and intentions of the possessors or would-be possessors of 
a commodity; and so there is no definite value which a 
thing possesses, and no just price, for a just price is merely 
the just measure, the proper equivalent of value. A man 
may sell a horse for what he can get, he may exact whatever 
interest the borrower will give him for a loan, he may pay 
his workmen as little as necessity forces them to take for a 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 

Value in theology and political economy 199 

day’s wage. There is no just price for commodities, justice 
is not violated by however unconscionable a bargain. 
Certainly these are conclusions of great importance, and if 
they had been proved to be true, we should have to modify 
some of the rules of Moral Theology. Catholic theologians 
of the middle ages, as well as their successors of to-day, are 
unanimous in teaching that there is such a thing as a just 
price for commodities, that justice can be violated by 
charging too much for what is sold, and that individual 
wants and tastes do not finally settle the just price. ‘ The 
estimation of one or two/ says Lugo , 1 4 does not suffice to 
raise the price, but the common estimation is required.’ 
This doctrine is common to all theologians, and most are 
content to quote in proof of it the Roman Civil Law : 4 The 
prices of things are not settled by the tastes or utility of 
individuals, but by those of the generality of people / 1 The 
great authority of the Roman Law, that ever-living monu- 
ment of written reason, was of itself considered sufficient 
to settle the question ; but some went further in their 
inquiries as to the method of arriving at the just price. 
Scotus taught that to estimate the just price of his merchan- 
dise the merchant should reckon up all the expenses which 
he has incurred in buying, transporting, housing his goods, 
then add to them something for his labour and trouble, and 
something else to compensate for the risks he has run : 
what corresponds more or less to all these items, will be the 
just price, he says . 8 

In modem phrase the costs of production were the 
measure of value, according to Scotus. This opinion was 
commonly rejected by other theologians, who pointed out 
that if this were so, the merchant who had lost a portion of 
his goods might raise the price of the rest to compensate 
himself ; which could not be admitted, for the price of goods 
is not measured by the profit or loss of the seller, bat by the 
common estimation concerning their value in the place 
where they are sold, consideration being given to all the 

1 De Justitia, xxvi., n. 42. 

9 L. Fretia rerum , 83 Dig. ad legem Falcidiam. 
• Molina, dfep. 348. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



circumstances ; besides Res perit domino , and it was not 
fair that the public should bear the private losses of the 

The common estimation then is the cause of value and 
the measure of value, according to the scholastics ; and if 
the formula be understood as they understood it, there 
seems no objection why 4 the common estimation ’ should 
not still be used as a correct term for the cause and the 
measure of what economists call market prices. For 
certainly the market price of an article, whatever it may 
ultimately depend upon, is settled proximately by the 
common estimation of the value of the article in the parti- 
cular market, at the time in question. Some of the 
most recent writers on Economics state this doctrine in 
terms as precise as those used by the scholastics. Thus 
Mr. J. A Hobson 1 says : — 

Now, just in proportion as exchange or market-value enters 
and displaces use-value, so does social determination of value 
displace individual determination. While value in use is strictly 
personal, value in exohange is distinctively social. A market, 
however crudely formed, is a social institution ; the value of our 
farmer’s produce is partly determined by the personal labour he 
has put into them, but partly by the needs and capacities of 
others, and not even by the needs and capacities of any definite 
individual, but by a great variety of needs and capacities expressed 
socially through the instrument of a market price, which is a 
highly elaborate result of bargaining, and does not represent the 
needs or the capacity of any single purchaser. 

It would seem, then, that the difference of view between 
theologians and economists appears prominently and prac- 
tically only with regard to non-market prices. The 
theologian teaches that justice requires that there should 
be an equivalence of social value between the price and the 
thing bought; (I say ‘social value/ because, of course, each 
party to a contract hopes to gain in individual value in use, 
otherwise there w T ould be no exchange ;) that the just 
price is settled by the common estimation of the value 
of an article ; that value is partly objective, inasmuch as it 

1 Th t Stcitl Problem, 1901, p. 144. 

Digitized by {joov Le 


supposes usefulness, capacity to be esteemed and desired, 
in the object, partly subjective, not, indeed, with reference 
merely to the wants and desires of the buyer and seller, but 
with reference to the common estimate of people at the 
particular time and pl&ce. However, theologians commonly 
allow the seller to charge for any special private loss of any 
sort which he may suffer from parting with his property, the 
pretium affecti onis as it is called ; and so to this extent they 
concede that subjective and private wants and desires may 
be allowed to influence the terms of the contract. What 
they agree in rejecting is the view that the seller may exact 
a higher price on account of some private necessity of the 
buyer, for then he might sell dearer to the poor than to the 
rich, or on account of some special advantage accruing to 
the buyer from his purchase, for then he would sell what 
did not belong to him, and sin against justice. 1 

On the other hand the economist considers that the 
value of an article and its price are settled by the consent of 
the parties to a bargain ; no man would give 100 per cent, 
interest for money unless it were worth his while ; the loan, 
therefore, is worth that price to him, and the lender does 
him no injustice in taking it. 

This, of course, would be true if both parties to the 
contract were equally intelligent, free, and independent; 
a man, if he chooses, may give what he likes of his own 
for any commodity ; if he gives a sovereign for a cup of tea 
at a bazaar, held for a charitable purpose, nobody will have 
anything but praise for his generosity. But usually when 
an unconscionable bargain is strack the parties are not on 
equal terms. 

If a man promises 100 per cent, for a loan, when the 
current rate of interest on money is 3 per cent., or if a 
labourer undertakes to work for sixpence a day, when the 
common rate of wages is sixpence an hour, hard necessity 
alone, or perhaps ignorance, will have been the cause of his 
consent to such unfair terms. In such cases theology 
teaches that he who exacts such hard terms commits a sin 

1 St. Thomas II. ii. q. 77, a. 1. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



against justice, and is bound to restitution ; but the theory 
of value, on which this theological doctrine rests, is, 
according to Dr. Cunningham, an ‘assumption which we 
have outlived/ 

The difference between theological and economic doc- 
trines on this point may partially perhaps be explained by 
the difference of standpoint assumed by theologians and 
economists respectively. Theologians consider the ques- 
tion from an ethical point of view, they condemn whatever 
the Christian code of morals condemns ; on the other hand 
many economists at least treat the phenomena of political 
economy as they treat the phenomena of the physical 
sciences. The law of supply and demand is, for the purposes 
of the science, studied and reasoned upon with the help of 
mathematics as if it were as necessary and determinate as a 
law of astronomy ; most economists abstract from questions 
of morality. Thus Jevons wrote : — 

I conceive that such a transaction must be settled upon other 
than economical grounds. The disposition and force of character 
of the parties, their comparative persistency, their adroitness and 
experience in business, or it may be a feeling of justice or of kind- 
liness really influences the decision. These are motives altogether 
extraneous to a theory of economy. 1 

Perhaps Dr. Cunningham belongs to this class of 
economists, and perhaps he would not disagree with the 
theologians if he treated the matter from their point of 
view, for he writes : — 

We feel that it is unfair for the economically strong to wring 
all he can out of the economically weak, or to trade on terms in 
which ‘ common estimation * is notoriously set aside. We have 
given up as impracticable many of the old attempts to put down 
hard bargains with a high hand : hut modern moral feeling does 
not sensibly differ from that of mediaeval times in the desire, if it 
were possible, to interfere with the action of any dealers who are 
able to enrich themselves through the necessities or the ignorance 
of others, and to gain at their expenre. If we tided to find a test 
by which to discriminate hard bargains we could scarcely do 
better than adopt the mediaeval phrase and say that hardship 
arises when a bargain is made without reference to ‘common 
estimation/ 2 

1 The Theory of Political Economy , p. 124. 3 Wettem Civilization , p. 80. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 


This is admirable, but we hardly see how it can be 
reconciled with other passages of the same author. In 
other passages he seems to condemn the theological doctrine 
not only as out of place in economics, but as false in itself. 
He thus seems to agree with many other writers, the earliest 
of whom is said to be Hobbes, who rejected the hitherto 
received doctrine on commutative justice, and substituted 
an invention of his own. ‘The value of all things con- 
tracted for/ he says, ‘ is measured by the appetite of the 
contractors: and therefore the just value is that which they 
be contented to give .' 1 

This assertion Hobbes did not attempt to prove, nor has 
it been proved by any of his followers. The argument 
drawn from marginal values is no proof that the subjective 
and individual theory of value is in accordance with truth 
and justice ; it merely formulates the fact that as a rule 
people will exchange commodities as long as it is worth 
their while to do so. 

Economists are by no means agreed as to the nature of 
value, although all confess that it is a question of the 
greatest difficulty; some hold that it is purely subjective, 
depending upon the desires of each individual ; others, that 
it is the same thing as private utility ; others, that it is 
social utility ; others, that it is the relation between two 
services exchanged ; others, that the value of a commodity 
is the labour bestowed on it, and so forth. None of these 
theories is commonly accepted, and none of them is an 
improvement on the old doctrine that common estimation 
is the cause and measure of value. The merely subjective 
theory, which seems to be most in vogue, fails to furnish 
any reasonable ground for condemning transactions which 
all, economists included, admit to be wrong. It even fur- 
nishes some sort of justification for the iniquities of the 
swindler, the usurer, and the sweater. I cannot do better 
than conclude this article with the concise argument by 
which, in his Encyclical on the Condition of Labour, 

1 Hobbes, Of Man , p. 137. 

Digitized by 



Leo XIII. proves its falseness as applied to the price of 

We now approach a subject [says the Holy Father] of very 
great importance, and one on which, if extremes are to be avoided, 
right ideas are absolutely necessary. Wages, we are told, are 
fixed by free consent, and, therefore, the employer, when he pays 
what was agreed upon, has done his part, and is not called upon 
for anything further. The only way, it is said, in which injustice 
could happen would be if the master refused to pay the whole 
of the wages, or the workman would not complete the work 
undertaken. . . '. . 

This mode of reasoning is by no means convincing to a 
fair-minded man, for there are important considerations which 
it leaves out of view altogether. To labour is to exert oneself for 
the sake of procuring what is necessary for the purposes of life, 
and most of all for self-preservation. In the siveat of thy brow 
thou shalt eat bread. Therefore a man's labour has two notes 
or characters. First of all, it is jwsotuil ; for the exertion of 
individual power belongs to the individual who puts it forth, em- 
ploying this power for that personal profit for which it was given. 
Secondly, man’s labour is necessary ; for without the results of 
labour a man cannot live, and self-conservation is a law of Nature 
which it is wrong to disobey. Now, if we were to consider 
labour merely so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be 
within the workman’s right to accept any rate of wages what- 
ever ; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so 
he is free to accept a small remuneration or even none at all. 
But this is a mere abstract supposition ; the labour of the 
working man is not only his personal attribute, but it is ?iecessary, 
and tliis makes all the difference. The preservation of life is the 
bounden duty of each and all, and to fail therein is a crime. It 
follows that each one has a right to procure what is required 
in order to live, and the poor can procure it in no other way than by 
work and wages. 

Let it be granted, then, that, as a rule, workman and employer 
should make free agreements, and in particular should freely 
agree as to wages, nevertheless there is a dictate of Nature more- 
imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and 
man, that the remuneration must he enough to support the wage- 
earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity, or 
fear of a worse evil, the workman accepts harder conditions 
because an employer or a contractor will give him no better, he is 
the victim of force and injustice. 

T. Slater, s.j. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

[ 205 ] 


D ESPITE the fact, so unequivocally disclosed by recent 
ethnological investigations, that Beligion arose, 
historically, quite independently of morality, and that, to a 
certain extent, the connection between them has always 
remained a precarious one, it nevertheless but seldom occurs 
to anyone nowadays (and least of all, I imagine, to a 
Catholic), to reflect on the distinction between the two, or 
.to consider their relation to one another. I am not, of 
course, oblivious of the distinction, common enough in 
Catholic schools, between Ethics and Moral Theology; but, 
as will appear more fully in a moment, this distinction 
hardly corresponds to the one I have in mind just now, and 
to the elucidation of which the present paper will be devoted’. 
There are doubtless many reasons for the current con- 
fusion of ideas — if that be not too strong a phrase — on the 
subject, and of these two occur to me as specially prominent. 
In the first place, the complete interpenetration of moral 
and religious ideas in our modern Catholic system seems 
largely responsible for the confusion to which I am referring. 
The morality of a Catholic is so much a part of his religion, 
and the natural ethical impulses are for him so inseparably 
associated with the dictates of a divine Lawgiver, that it is 
hardly possible for him to conceive of a morality which 
should rest upon any other basis than that of a divine 
ordinance. Nor is this confusion of altogether modem 
growth. We find it in the classical moralists of the Church, 
who always appear incapable of deciding whether man ought 
to be moral because morality is natural to him, or because 
it is Gods will that he should. While, as moral philo- 
sophers, they accept to a man the Aristotelian doctrine 
that happiness is our being’s end and aim, and feel that 
the notions of duty and obedience are foreign to purely 
ethical enquiries, at the same time, as theologians, they 
are constantly endeavouring to find a place for these 
very notions in their ethical system, with the result that 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



Scholastic Ethics presents at its inception an indissoluble 

A second source of the prevailing confusion may, perhaps, 
be found in the influence of Kant’s ethics on all subsequent 
speculation concerning moral problems. Kant, as we all 
know, made morality to consist in submission to the Cate- 
gorical Imperative of Duty, and further reckoned the so-called 
1 moral ’ argument as the sole valid demonstration— the 
word is sufficiently accurate for present purposes— of the 
existence of the divine Being, without whom morality is 
inexplicable. For him, therefore, as for most of those 
who came after him, the connection between morality 
andreligion is the closest imaginable. Indeed, if duty be 
regarded as the essential element in all morality, it is not 
too much to say that morality thereupon becomes a mere 
department of Religion, since the notion of duty necessarily 
implies that of a supreme authoritative Lawgiver, and is 
meaningless apart from the admitted existence of such a 
transcendent Moral Governor. 

It is scarcely necessary for me to point out that I am 
not here engaged in criticising the idea of duty, nor am I, of 
course, in the least disposed to question its validity or 
importance. What I wish to point out is that duty is a 
religious, and not an ethical, idea, and that its importation 
into the domain of pure Ethics rests on a mistake, and can 
only be productive of confusion of thought. In doing this I 
shall have gone as far as I believe to be necessary in clearing 
up the relation between Ethics and Religion. I should add 
that the views here put forward must be taken as provisional, 
since, naturally, I am far from thinking, that I have been 
entirely successful in solving the problem raised by the title 
of my paper. In setting down the results of some thinking 
on the subject, my chief aim is to throw out a few hints and 
suggestions on an important, though seemingly neglected 
topic, which, as I hope, some of my readers may be induced 
to take up for themselves and work out with greater fulness 
of detail and more fruitful results than I could presume to 

To begin with, then, it is clearly necessary to fix upon the 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



precise sense in which the words ethics and religion are to 
be employed in the course of the ensuing discussions. By 
Ethics I understand the science, or better, the study of 
morality, and by morality I mean a right way of living. 
Beligion it is more difficult to define in a single phrase, but 
no substantial objection can, I imagine, be taken to the 
description of it as the cultivation or worship of a supra- 
mundane power, with its attendant incidents of obligation 
and restriction . 1 The question then is : What is the rela- 
tion between Morality and Beligion as thus defined? I 
think it is best to commence by taking note of a remark- 
able and indeed fundamental difference between ancient and 
modern systems of Ethics. This difference lies in the fact 
hat, whereas the idea of duty forms, as we have seen, an 
important element in most modern ethical systems, some- 
times even entering into the very definition of Ethics, no 
corresponding notion can be discovered in the moral philoso- 
phies of Greece and Borne. Many post-Kantian writers in 
particular give prominence to the idea of duty in their 
definition of ethical science, and to such a degree has the 
mode of viewing the subject involved in this procedure in- 
fluenced modem thought that scarcely anyone nowadays 
dreams of an Ethic which does not mark out clear and 
definite lines of conduct, and formulate commands which it 
seeks to enforce by the enumeration of various pains and 
penalities, attaching to disobedience thereto. In short, the 
notion most emphatically proclaimed by the general body 
of moralists at the present day is that of duty or obligation. 
Just the contrary was the case with the moralists of antiquity. 
Neither in Greek nor in Latin is there any word which 
exactly corresponds in meaning to the modern conception 
of duty. The ethical ideal was never, in fact, conceived 
by the ancients under the form of a law or commandment 
at all. 

I am aware that expressions are sometimes to be met with 
which might seem at first sight to negative this assertion. 
Most of us, for example, have heard of the Socratic vofioi 

1 See as to this the very interesting remarks of the late Professor 
Wallace, Lecture t and Etsayt, pp. 62-59 (Oxford, 1898). 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



aypa<f>oty innate or 1 unwritten ’ laws. But one need be no 
great Grecian to know that the word vopos, as thus em- 
ployed, bears its ordinary signification of custom or settled 
institution. Similarly Aristotle, in his ethical writings, makes 
occasional use of the phrases Set and Scov, but always in a 
passing and cursory way, never pausing to analyse the under- 
lying conception, which can hardly be said to have been 
present to his mind in any explicit or developed form. The 
modem notion of an ethical or categorical imperative — 
concerning which I shall have something to say in the 
sequel — is altogether wanting in ancient ethics. Ethical 
precepts are expressed by Greek and Roman moralists 
alike in the form of a hypothetical imperative, or, at 
most, of an i optative.* The moralist of antiquity offers 
counsels to his disciples ; he never imposes commands. 
The reason for this is, as it seems to me, that the 
older thinkers always kept to the purely rational or 
human point of view, or, in other words, they remained 
faithful to the conception of Ethics as a philosophic 
science. They never imported into ethical considerations 
ideas derived from Religion and Theology, and so their 
systems are wholly free from the initial confusion which 
so often mars the work of their successors. To my 
thinking, they were entirely right in their procedure, and 
if I must speak my whole mind, I believe that in the 
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle is to be found the basis and 
substance of the only completely consistent and satisfactory 
body of ethical doctrine, just as his logical treatises contains 
the basis of every subsequent logic, or the Elements of 
Euclid the foundations of all future geometry. Such is the 
thesis which I set out to establish ; the remainder of my 
paper shall be devoted to its substantiation. 

I will not attempt to disguise the apparently radical 
opposition between this view of Ethics as a science intrinsi- 
cally independent of religious doctrines and that generally 
held by educated Catholics at the present day. I think, 
however, that when proper explanations have been made, 
the opposition in question in large measure disappears, or 
becomes at most a matter of method, though, no doubt, 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 

the relation of ethics TO RELIGION 209 

none the less important on that account. We are all 
more or less familiar with the notion of the ethical end, 
or end of human action, and with the fact of the general 
agreement among moralists that this end is to be found 
in happiness, though, to be sure, in the interpretation 
given to the notion of happiness the widest possible 
differences have prevailed. I have little doubt that 
the best and most generally satisfactory conception of 
the nature and function of ethical science may be reached 
through the consideration of a typical doctrine of ethical 
eudaemonism, such as we meet with, for example, in 
the pages of Aristotle. It is impossible, indeed, to discuss 
at all adequately in this place the content of the notion 
‘ happiness * or ‘ well-being,* or to determine in what the 
peculiar happiness of mankind consists. Nor, indeed, is it 
essential to my purpose to do so. I will, therefore, assume 
at once that the doctrine of eudaemonism is well founded, 
and that happiness of some sort is the end and aim of all 
distinctly human activity. I contend that on this assumption 
a complete and coherent system of Ethics may be worked 
out, and having established this point, I shall proceed to 
consider more closely the relation between Ethics (as thus 
conceived) and Religion. 

Ethics, then, starts with the idea of an end, and the 
most important of the concepts with which the moralist 
operates will consequently be that of ‘ right * or 4 reasonable ' 
action. By right or reasonable, as applied to human actions, 
he will understand that quality of such actions which 
renders them conducive to, in harmony with, or, at least, 
not opposed to, the ultimate end. The main business of 
practical Ethics will be to discover, by means of an analysis 
of the notions involved in the very idea of ethical science, 
what acts are or are not right or reasonable. Viewed in their 
relation to the ultimate end, all reasonable actions will, of 
course, ultimately be in a sort 4 felicific * — if I may use 
this convenient neologism — in fact, it is precisely because 
they tend, directly or indirectly, to produce happiness 
that they are declared to be reasonable. To determine 
what particular actions are right or wrong it will, of 
VOLf x. o 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



course, be a matter of grave difficulty, except in the simplest 
cases. Doubtless to say that those actions are right which 
are conducive to the moral life of individuals is a statement 
which tampers with no facts, and involves no hypotheses. 
Still it is clearly of little value as a practical guide, and a 
logician might, perhaps, bring other serious charges against 
it. But let that pass. My present concern is not with the 
ethical standard — the fyo? rwv /me< xon/iw , as Aristotle calls 
it — but rather with the bare notions of ethical right and 
wrong themselves. Now, the essential problem of Ethics 
is, in my view, which is also, I suppose, in essence the view 
of Aristotle, the problem of happiness. I will not go the 
length of interpreting happiness, as does that great man, to 
mean exclusively the happiness attainable in this life, though I 
incline to believe that the partisans of an altogether trans- 
cendent morality have much to learn from a Btudy of the 
Nichomachean Ethics . Certainly we can only determine the 
ends at which it is reasonable for men to aim by studying 
human nature in the concrete in relation to the conditions 
under which it has to develop. The main point, however, is 
that if it be the function of Ethics to teach men how to realise 
the sovereign good (which we have agreed to place in happiness 
of some kind), then there is no room for anything in the 
nature of command or obligation. The true ethical category 
is the right (= the reasonable), not the ought (= the obliga- 
tory). To tell a man that he ‘ought* to cultivate such 
habits of action as will lead to his eventual well-being is to 
use language that, from the ethical standpoint, has no real 
meaning. Prove to him, if you will, that some actions are 
right, i.e.y are such as would naturally commend themselves 
to the good man, but leave him to perform them or not as he 
pleases, or you desert the region of Ethics altogether. The 
moralist, as I said before and cannot too often repeat, must 
proceed, if he is to remain true to his mission, by way of counsel 
and example, by pointing to an ideal in whom the attributes 
of the ‘good * man are visibly expressed. The right, for him, 
is the reasonable, or what makes for a good way of living ; 
and the wrong is the unreasonable, that which is out of 
harmony with the ends at which it is reasonable for the 

Digitized by 



individual, regard being had to his position and circum- 
stances, to aim. To give a new turn to a well-worn phrase, 
we may say quite literally that ‘sweet reasonableness’ is the 
true note of ethical action. A similar thought was probably 
in the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas when he asserted that 
while the theolbgian regards sin as an offence against God, 
the moral philosopher sees in it merely a violation of right 
reason . 1 Virtue is the intelligent pursuit of the highest 
good, and the fundamental postulate of Ethics is that life, in 
the most extended meaning of the term, is itself good, itself 
the end, itself the good for man. Those acts or means are 
likewise good which conduce to this end. In particular, 
those actions are good which tend to the welfare of the whole 
of which the individual character or single man forms apart. 
Here a question obviously suggests itself to the practical 
moralist. It may be asked, in effect — and I believe the 
question takes us at once to the root of the matter — Why is 
good action to be pursued and evil action avoided? The 
answer is in reality simple enough, though, as will after- 
wards appear, it is an answer which affords none too great 
assistance in the stress and turmoil of concrete moral life. 
It is an answer which requires to be supplemented before it 
can well be proclaimed from the house-tops with perfect 
safety. In a sense, the moralist has no complete answer to 
the question as thus formulated, and he is apt to appear at a 
loss when closely pressed to give a reply. He stands in a 
position almost identical with that of an artist who should 
be questioned as to why he ought to aim at the highest of 
which he is capable in his art. To those who have no love 
or appreciation for art, no satisfactory reply could, perhaps, 
be given ; and so, speaking, of course, from the strictly ethical 
standpoint, no complete answer can be given to the ques- 
tion, Why ought I be moral? There is really no ‘ ought* 
about the matter if the notion of oughtness be taken to 
involve that of any external constraint. I * ought * to be 
moral because morality is reasonable, and as such commends 
itself to my rational nature. I suppose if we all of us could 

1 Sum, Theol. I. ii. q. Ixxi. a yi. ad 5. 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



see the facts with sufficient clearness in their relations to 
one another, if we could trace out the consequences of our 
conduct, or rather if we could see in a moment’s intuition 
all the consequences which a particular couse of action 
involves, I suppose, I say, that if this ideal state of affairs 
existed upon the earth, immorality would become im- 
possible. In this sense the Socratic doctrine that virtue 
is knowledge, seems to be the expression of a genuine 
truth. In the dry light of reason, immoral action stands self- 
condemned, by the very terms of its definition. And that, after 
all, is the only reason for its avoidance which the moralist can 
give. If life be the good, it is surely reasonable to embrace 
such courses of action as make for a right way of living, 
and to shun their opposites as unreasonable. But if the 
moralist be further questioned as to why reasonable action 
is alone to be pursued, he has no alternative but to answer, 

1 If you wish to act unreasonably, remember you can only 
do so at the cost of doing violence to your own nature as 
man ; but of course if you are such a fool as to be unaffected 
by this consequence, and if the “ good for man ” has really 
no attractions for you, I am afraid there is no more to be 
said.’ Moral philosophy determines the nature of man’s 
sovereign good, but it has no means of compelling the vulgar 
to strive after its realisation. This is what I mean by 
saying that Ethics has no completely satisfactory answer to 
the query referred to above. The moralist sketches an 
ideal which he puts before mankind, leaving them to con- 
form their lives to it or not as they themselves think fit. 
He has no sanctions to propose as attaching to deviation 
from this ideal ; at most he can but declare that the realisa- 
tion of the ideal is itself ethically good. It may occur here 
to the thoughtful reader that all this amounts to saying that 
morality is a matter of taste, and that a preference for immoral 
conduct is, strictly speaking, no more to be condemned than 
a preference for bad art. But the cases are not really parallel. 
The ethical end imposes itself upon our reason in a manner 
that admits of no denial. We cannot refuse to recognise the 
fact that human well-being, whether in this or in a future 
life, is itself a good, and that the means thereto are worthy 

Digitized by L^ooQle 


objects of moral choice. We do not ourselves propose the 
end for our own peculiar satisfaction. It is given us in the 
nature of things, and its recognition is incumbent upon all 
who take account of the facts. That reason is the highest 
part of man, and that its dictates are pre-eminently worthy 
of our obedience, is itself a fact that brooks no contradiction. 
The business of Ethics, and its functions as a science, is 
just to make explicit this fact, and to deduce the conse- 
quences which flow from it. The moral philosopher is 
concerned to map out the course of right action — Ivipyua 
Kara -njv <ro<f>lav. No doubt this itself is, in Aristotle’s 
phrase, a large order, and it is unquestionably a work 
of the highest practical importance. But the moralist 
has no way of enforcing the maxims which he proposes 
to our acceptance in the name of right reason. There is a 
place in an ethical system for the notions of fault and error, 
but none for that of * sin,’ in the precise and definite sense 
of the infraction of a (divine) law imposed from without. It 
follows that the hortatory function of the moralist is limited 
in the extreme. He is scarcely, if at all, concerned with the 
notions of merit and demerit. Even freedom and responsi- 
bility are terms with which he has nothing to do. For all 
these notions are only intelligible when explicitly referred 
to a Law emanating from a transcendent authority, and the 
notion of such a Law is a notion foreign to the ethical 
sphere, having in fact been imported into it, mistakenly, as 
I think, from the sphere of Religion. 

This brings us to the second part of our discussion. The 
characteristic difference between ancient and modern Ethics 
lies, as pointed out above, in the recognition by the moderns 
of the idea of divine law as all important in the domain of 
morals. It might be urged, indeed, that the suggested 
antithesis between ancient and modern ethical thought does 
not hold good universally, but it is sufficiently accurate for 
the ends I have in view, and more convenient than that 
between Christian and pagan Ethics, which I had in mind at 
the beginning. For one thing, I have no desire to appeal to 
theological prejudice in a question of this kind, and more- 
over, while it is incontrovertible that the event of Christianity 

Digitized by ^3 ooqLc 



definitely established and gave currency to the idea of a code 
of Ethics based upon divine commandments, it should not 
he forgotten that such a notion may be found, in a more or 
less explicit form, in very ancient times, and that it is 
present, at least in germ, in all primitive religions, including 
even that of the Greeks. In face of this opposition of 
ethical thought, two courses are open to us. We may, to 
begin with, assert— and this is what is commonly done — 
that ancient systems of Ethics are one and all maimed, 
inchoate, imperfect, and in particular altogether inferior to 
our own, which rests upon notions derived from Judaeo- 
Christian tradition. Or again, we may ask ourselves whether 
this off-hand denunciation of ancient Ethics does not itself 
result from a confusion between the philosophical and the 
religious or theological points of view. 

For myself I have no hesitation in adopting the latter 
alternative. I will never consent to deny the name of 
moralist to those high-souled men of antiquity, from 
Socrates to Marcus Aurelius, to whom we are indebted for 
so substantial a part of our boasted modern culture. Plato 
and Aristotle are none the less genuine moralists because 
they never entertained the conception of duty, and had no 
word in their rich ethical vocabulary to express it. The 
case is different with regard to Religion. To it the notions 
of Law and Obligation are essential — au integral part of its 
content. In the earliest types of religious thought, as in 
the latest and most developed, we meet with the concept of 
a Divine Will, conceived in a manner analogous to that 
of a human legislator or even a despot, in which all moral 
precepts have their roots, and from which they derive their 
constraining force. I am not disputing the identity in 
point of content of the ethical and religious codes. On 
the contrary, such identity, in the main, forms part 
of my own case, as the reader will discover before 
the close, should his patience hold out so long. The 
religious notions do not contradict, but supplement, the 
ethical. In truth, it is only through the mediation of 
religion that ethical precepts acquire a divine sanction and 
mandate ; and it is not too much to say that, were it not 

Digitized by ^ooQle 


for the help of the theologian, the moralist’s counsels would 
remain for ever ineffective with the great mass of mankind. 
One great function of the religious teaching of the Churches 
in all ages has, in fact, been the supply of extra-mundane 
motives stimulating men to the performance of duty. And 
nobody, of course, doubts that a large proportion (if not 
the whole) of what the Churches deemed 4 duty * was also 
advocated by the moralists as * right * in their acceptation of 
the term. By all means, then, let the preacher and the moralist 
make common cause. They both aim at making men better 
and happier than they are, and they are both substantially 
at one as to what constitutes goodness and happiness. But 
only confusion can result from their attempt to usurp one 
another’s functions. Now, that duty and the ideas connected 
therewith are formally and essentially religious, as distin- 
guished from ethical, ideas is apparent, I take it, the moment 
we reflect that, after all, it is only from the point of view of 
Religion, and especially of revealed Religion, that a principle 
of duty can be clearly understood and defined. The bare 
notion of obligation resting upon us as persons presupposes 
an Infinite Person, from whom we derive our being and all 
we possess, and who, in consequence, has a right of com- 
manding us and disposing of us as he pleases Without 
the establishment of quasi -contractial relations between 
Creator and creature there is, properly speaking, no 1 duty ’ 
possible. Conscience, as ordinarily understood, points to a 
moral lawgiver above and beyond ourselves. It is in us, 
but not of us ; it reveals, but does not enact, the law. And 
if we look to the so-called sanctions of morality, the religious 
character of the notions which pass current as ethical in the 
ordinary text books of Moral Science is still more luminously 
evident. In short, the positive morality of Christian 
countries of to-day is so much a purely religious affair that, 
were the hope of a future state of existence suddenly blasted, 
it would inevitably disappear. I will not dwell on the 
exclusive character of such a view as this, which must, I 
suppose, be patent to all who take the trouble to think out 
the matter for themselves, and the predominance of which 
is particularly regrettable just now when the continuous 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



spread of agnosticism tends to render the recognition of a 
non-religions ethic every day of more importance. But I 
cannot resist the conclusion that many of our so-called 
ethical principles are really religious principles at bottom. 
Take the case, for example, of the Natural Law — a concept 
which looms large in our Catholic handbooks of Ethics, 
and to the elucidation of which the chief part of their 
contents is frequently devoted. The notion of a Natural 
Law seems to me to be open to serious criticism from 
more than one side, but here I am only concerned to call 
attention to the fact that it is one which finds its true place 
not in a system of Ethics but in a system of Natural 
Theology. It imparts relations between God and man 
which are in no way necessary to the elaboration of a 
completely rounded and coherent body of ethical philosophy. 
On the other hand, it is of the very essence of Religion to 
impose binding obligations upon those who give it their 
adherence. To my mind, the key to the true relationship 
between Ethics and Religion lies just in this fact. What 
the moralist conceives of as the right, Religion enforces as 
the law. To be sure, I do not believe that there is any such 
thing possible as a complete system of Ethics constructed 
dogmatically in advance. 'E «r/ici> ivtpytfy, said Aristotle 
long ago. And so it is only by looking to concrete human 
experiences, by viewing real men in their various complex 
relations, individual, social, political, and most of all by 
living for ourselves the moral life, that we can determine 
the final truth in Ethics, or can reach the full and adequate 
comprehension of the good for man. ‘ In other words,’ 
as a distinguished philosopher has expressed it, ‘there 
can be no final truth in Ethics any more than in 
Physics, until the last man has bad bis experience and 
said his say.’ 1 

Still, none but a pessimist will deny that the contents 
of the ethical and the religious consciousness are for all 
practical purposes identical. It is, therefore, possible that 
the moralist when he utters his guesses as to the true nature 

1 "Willisra James, The Will to Believe, etc., p. 184 (New York, 1897) 

Digitized by 


of the good life may be, after all, like the children of whom 
the poet tells us, 

Pious beyond the intention of their thought, 

Devout above the meaning of their will. 

At all events, it is certain that the idea of duty is, from 
the rational or philosophical standpoint, utterly inexplicable. 
The breakdown of Kant’s Ethics is a convincing proof of 
this fact. The most salient defect in his moral system is 
unquestionably his failure to account for the idea of duty. 
In order to maintain his position, he would have had to 
shew that this eminently respectable notion did not come 
into existence through the action of psychological laws ; 
and to vindicate its claim to be regarded as an original and 
independent category of reason, he would have had to prove 
at least that it had never been transferred by association 
from the religious sphere. The criticism which Schopenhauer 
passes upon the famous ‘ categorical imperative ’ is abun- 
dantly justified, viz., that it was a result of Kant’s Protestant 
upbringing, and was in reality inspired by the Ten Com- 
mandments. To go to the root of the matter, it seems to 
me that the attempt to found goodness upon duty, to make 
morality submission to an absolute commandment, the result 
of a law * shot out of a pistol ' somewhere in the supra-mundane 
regions, necessarily involves a vo wpov irpoTtpov, for surely it 
can never be good to obey a law qua law. The moral value 
of obedience consists in the fact that what is commended is 
in itself good, and that to pursue the good is the part of a 
moral man. This is true even of obedience to the Natural 
Law. It is good to obey God’s will because God’s will is 
in itself good. The ethical category is primary and funda- 
mental, and in this sense it may be said that all true Religion 
has its roots in ethical ground. No one, I think, has indi- 
cated the relation between Ethics and Religion more clearly 
or more correctly than Spinoza. He distinguishes between 
the ethics of obedience and philosophical Ethics. There is no 
opposition between the two; on the contrary, the ethics 
of obedience which bases all the rules of human conduct 
upon a Divine cemmand is precisely the expression of the 
trqe rational Ethic, though in a form capable of being 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



apprehended by the multitude and easily picturable in 
imagination. Philosophy and Theology mii3t be kept 
distinct and separate from one another. They are comple- 
mentary but co-ordinate, each mistress in her own sphere, 
and no good result can come from their confusion. 

The result of our discussion is now manifest. I have 
tried to shew that it is only by accident, through a natural 
confusion of ideas, that we are inclined nowdays to regard 
the current view of Ethics as founded upon the idea of 
obligation as the classical and traditional, as well as the 
only satisfactory, form of the science. Ethics must be 
completely separated from Theology, must be brought down 
from heaven and given its true place on earth among men. 
Ethics must hand over to Religion the concepts she has 
borrowed, and of which she has made an illegitimate use, 
and Religion on her side must recognise the independence 
and relative autonomy of Ethics. There is no cause for 
disagreement between the two, for while their principles are 
different, they endeavour to reach results subtantially the 
same. Ethics must beware of minimising the real value 
and practical importance of the religious concepts of law, of 
duty, of reward and punishment. It is not the case that 
there are two moral codes existing side by side and having 
equal claims on our respect and admiration. It is the 
points of view rather than the results which are different. 
The moralist considers the principles of human conduct in 
and for themselves and with^quite other objects from those of 
the theologian. He fixes his gaze upon the sovereign good 
for man as the goal of his researches and regards human 
actions solely as related to that end. The theologian, on the 
other hand, is concerned to induce mankind to submit them- 
selves to the will of God, and for this purpose he is compelled 
to make use of appeals to our love, our fear, and indeed to call 
into activity every one of those springs of action upon which 
the moral life is dependent for its realisation with the 
vast majority of us. Had our wills never felt the fleshly 
screen, it is conceivable that the cold unimpassioned exhor- 
tations of the moralist might have sufficed to win men to 
goodness, which, as we know, is in the long run identical 

Digitized by 


with happiuess. Poor weak humanity, however, stands in 
need of motives more powerful than the gentle allurements 
of reasonableness, 1 sweet ’ indeed, but often powerless amid 
the clash and conflict of uncontrollable impulses. Hence 
Religion steps in to aid the cause of the good life, and those 
whom it cannot win over by a love that ranks among the 
purest and noblest of moral sentiments, it cows by fear into 
submission to the law of righteousness. To follow right 
for righteousness’ sake were .iudeed true wisdom, but it is 
the wisdom rather of angels than of men. Yet after all, this 
need not greatly concern us, for in the knowledge that in 
acquiescing in God’s own good pleasure we are at the same 
time working out our own end as men, we have the ground 
of a synthesis between Ethics and Religion which, while 
enjoining their mutual distinction, harmonises their ends 
by merging them in a unity higher than either. 

W. Vesey Hague, m.a. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 

[ 220 ] 


I GNORANCE is the source of many evils. An insufficient 
knowledge of the dogmatic teachings of our holy faith 
has wrought fearful havoc amongst the youth of our 
progressive age, entangling them in the network of the 
sophistical theories of modem scepticism, causing them 
first to doubt, then to question, and finally to deny the 
truths of religion — whose fundamental principles they have 
never learned. Ignorance of those essential truths, which 
by the moral law all Christians are bound to know and 
believe, has been the cause of the eternal ruin of many. 

Affirmamus [says Pope Benedict XIV.] magnam eorum 
partem qui aeternis suppliers damnantur, earn calaraitatem per- 
petuo subire ob ignorantiam mysteriorum Fidei quae scire et 
credere necessario debent : multi enim laborant ignorantia orassa 
articulorum Fidei quos explicite scire et credere tenentur aeque 
ac Sacramentorum. 

I do not intend to speak of either of these extremes of 
religious ignorance, although the subject I mean to treat of 
has an intimate connection with them. That subject is the 
deficiency of adequate moral training in the child, by which 
false ideas and erroneous consciences are formed in the 
minds of the young and allowed to remain, to the prejudice 
of that sweet and easy advancement in holiness which it 
should be our object to promote. Of this deficiency then, 
its causes and its lamentable consequences, I shall en- 
deavour to speak, and afterwards I shall suggest what I 
think to be the most useful means whereby a truer percep- 
tion of the moral principles of our faith may be engendered 
in the impressionable mind of the child. 

I. That children, to a large extent in some places, to 
some degree at least in almost all places, are ignorant as to 
all the true nature of sin, its gravity, its specific difference, 
priests who have had any considerable experience in hear- 
jpg their confessions must adroit, Take, for instance, the 

Digitized by 




precept of prayer. Many theologians hold that this would 
not be mortally violated except by neglecting it for a whole 
year. Be this as it may, it is at all events the commonly 
received opinion that one does not commit a grievous Bin 
by abstaining from prayer for about a month ; and this, 
even though not one pious affection, one single act of 
religious worship, internal or external, was offered up during 
that space of time, which is almost an inconceivable 
hypothesis, especially in the case of the child. Practically 
then, for even a very ordinary Christian, the possibility of 
mortal sin is excluded as to the fulfilment of the precept of 
prayer ; and who shall determine when precisely even a 
venial fault is committed ? Now, as a general rule, what 
do children think of this? ‘How many children,’ says 
Father Cros, in his excellent treatise, The Confessor after 
God’s Own Heart, * pupils of small seminaries and ecclesi- 
astical colleges, accuse themselves as of mortal sins of having 
ill-performed or neglected morning or night prayers for a 
few, or even one day.’ The necessity of prayer may be 
deeply impressed upon the child’s mind ; the beauty of 
prayer — the union of our souls with our Heavenly Father — 
may be constantly proposed to the child; the efficacy of 
persevering, fervent prayer may be proved and illustrated ; 
all this is right, all this is indispensable ; but when a child 
counts himself guilty of mortal sin if he neglect his morning 
and night prayers for a day, or a week, or a fortnight, then 
there is a deficiency in his moral training. 

Barely do we meet with little boys and girls who have 
sufficient intelligence to gauge the degree of gravity to which 
their sins reach. With what a halting voice for instance, 
are we told sometimes that they have cursed ! It has cost 
them no small effort to summon up courage to make the 
declaration. Their minds had been constantly filled with a 
horror of this wicked habit ; they bawl been strictly warned 
to shun those companions who were addicted to it, and so 
they are sure, oh, always sure, that this anyhow is a grievous 
sin. And if, through cruel-to-be-kind curiosity, we ask 
them to repeat for us the ‘ curses ’ they have uttered, we 
often find it very hard to keep a serious countenance. And, 

Digitized by 



oh, what joy the children feel, when we in mercy tell them, 
if we do, of the small offence, if any, against God which 
their ‘curses’ usually contain. And so with many other 
of their common faults ; taking the name of God in vain, for 
example, talking and laughing in the chapel, being wilfully 
distracted and inattentive at Holy Mass. For children to 
accuse themselves of these things is all right ; for children 
to be imbued with a lively sense of the disrespect towards 
Jesus Christ of which they are guilty by voluntary acts 
of irreverence is most desirable ; but to be persuaded 
that thereby they are committing mortal sin is a sad 
mistake and shows a lamentable deficiency in their moral 

II. Now, in the second place, let us glance for a moment 
at the causes of this deficiency. These, I think, may be 
reduced to three. The first is a negative one, and is to be 
found in the child’s own intellect and untrained mind. The 
second is in the early impressions of the child, whereby in 
its home and in school it is imbued with a hatred of all 
kinds of wrong-doing without any discrimination as to 
degree of gravity. The third cause arises from imperfect 
catechizing by those who do not understand aright the 
true nature of their all-important office, or are otherwise 

(1.) With regard to the first cause little need be said. 
As we have seen, children, if left to themselves, will form 
the most mistaken ideas regarding the nature and gravity 
of sin. As a rule they are thoughtless and giddy, incapable 
of serious reflection, utterly unable to determine whether it 
is to the right or to the left they are to turn. ‘ They 
resemble,’ as a Protestant divine beautifully puts it, ‘ those 
pliant tendrils which are ready to attach themselves to any 
object whatever; to cling, to twine themselves in close 
embrace around some broken branch that lies rotting on 
the earth, aB around the tree on whose strong and stately 
stem they might climb to the skies.’ 1 

They have little or no judgment, their reasoning powers 

1 Dr. Gutlirio, Early Piety. 

Digitized by AjOoq Le 



are very limited. This is true of them in almost every 
respect, but it is especially true in matters of conscience 
&nd morality. Here they are completely at sea, hopelessly 
incompetent to distinguish between small and great, between 
counsel and precept, and oftentimes, between right and 
wrong. And hence, with a confused notion of the malice 
of every species of wrong-doing, when confession day comes 
around, they will, with unhappy hearts, examine their 
consciences on every thing they can possibly think of, 
make all kinds of impracticable resolutions for the future, 
tell their * sins,’ and, after confession — all their trouble 
over — go back to their childish life the very same as 

(2.) The second cause of the child’s erroneous con- 
ceptions are the early impressions of sin received from its 
parents and toachers. 

As a general rule, when sins, whether of commission or 
omission are spoken of to the little ones, the strongest 
language is used. With regard to some special faults, 
parents and teachers must necessarily be very severe, they 
must never make light of them or pass them over, if they 
would prevent in time the formation of pernicious habits 
which eventually might develop into grievous crimes. 
The child is told how God is always looking at us, and how 
angry He is when we do anything that displeases Him. He 
is scolded, oftentimes punished with severity, when he is 
known to have transgressed — but no discrimination is 
taught him as to the degree of gravity his offences contain : 
the malice of evil-doing is being ever impressed upon him, 
but he knows of no distinction between small and great. 
What wonder then that the conception of sin in the child’s 
mind regarding his common faults grows stronger and 
stronger, till finally he becomes convinced that many — if 
not all — of his defects are grievous offences. (Let it be 
clearly understood that I do not in any way mean to assert 
that parents are culpably responsible for the deficiency of 
their children’s moral training; still less do I wish to 
censure or discourage the praiseworthy efforts of parents 
and teachers to inspire the child with a horror of sin, and a 

Digitized by L^OOQle 

the Irish ecclesiastical record 


love of virtue — except, perhaps, when their over zeal leads 
them to undue severity. My object is solely to state what 
I think to be a fact, namely, that the untrained mind of the 
child is apt to deduce erroneous conclusions from their 
persistent, well-intentioned admonitions in matters of moral 

Let me give one example. Most children are severely 
chastised by their parents and teachers for the vice of lying. 
In the school, the child who is found guilty of this vice is 
publicly punished and humiliated, held up as almost the 
worst example of youthful perversity, and solemnly warned 
to be sure to tell the priest of their falsehood the next time 
they go to confession. Unfortunately, in dealing with 
children’s faults, this is a common practice amongst certain 
classes of teachers, and one greatly to be condemned. And 
so, terribly impressed with the gravity of this offence, it 
naturally concludes, if left to its own unaided powers of 
discrimination, that it must surely be one of the * big ’ sins. 

Under this second cause of the child’s deficiency in 
right moral perception, I may mention also the extensive 
and misleading catalogue of sins, to be found in many 
prayer-books, especially the older ones, on which the 
examination of conscience is to be made. Here small and 
great, necessary and useful, counsel and precept are placed 
before the child’s untrained mind in one miscellaneous 
compendium of offences. I need not dwell on this relic of 
Jansenistic practice; everyone can see what a prolific 
source it is of error and confusion. 

(3.) The third cause of the child’s ignorance is imperfect 
catechizing by those who are not suited for nor sufficiently 
interested in this important duty. It is not every one who 
can be an efficient catechist. There are few who understand 
aright — I am speaking principally of lay-teachers— the true 
nature of catechetical instruction. Many, unfortunately, 
seem to think that anything is good enough for the children, 
and that it makes very little matter whether the doctrine 
they expound for them be sound and exact or the reverse. 
They do not understand that by their carelessness and want 
of precision they are sowing the seeds of error and doubt 

Digitized by L jOOQle 

the Moral training of children 225 

and sometimes even of positive unbelief in the child’s mind; 
for children unhesitatingly take whatever the catechist tells 
them on the authority of his word. 

The catechist [says Father Potter in his admirable work, The 
Pan tor and his People], who does not possess sufficient knowledge 
to enable him to discharge these duties (i.c., of successful cate- 
chising) as he ought, will be certain to go lamentably astray in the 
matter of his teaching. He will teach heresy without knowing it. 
At one time he will put upon his people oligations which God and 
His Church never imposed upon them. At another he will teach 
them that they are not bound by the gravest laws. Thus, his 
inexact teaching ; his false decisions, at one time too lax, and at 
another too severe, will in all probability be the cause of innumer- 
able sins in his flock, since it is thus that false consciences are 

Of course it is evident that if the catechist himself has 
confused notions concerning the truths and precepts of 
religion, or but a superficial knowledge of his subject, he 
cannot fail to instil erroneous ideas in his pupils’ minds. 
But even though he be well versed in moral science, it often 
happens through his want of tact, his lack of interest in his 
work, his deficiency in zeal or his inadequate conception of 
the sublimity of his office, that he will make haphazard 
statements eminently calculated to produce wrong impres- 
sions in the untrained minds of his young hearers. 

These souls [says Mgr. Dupanloup] are young plants, tender 
flowers, often beaten down to earth by killing blasts and withered 
before their time. Well, to revive them, to lift their heads again 
towards heaven, you, in the catechism, pour upon them the pure 
water of doctrine, the sweet dew of grace ; and with what charm- 
ing eagerness they drink it ! and how quickly and how entirely 
they are penetrated by it l . . . Ah ! out you must thoroughly 

understand not thick , muddy water must you pour upon them, 
but pure , fresh springing water , the water of the living word. 

Unfortunately— as who better than we priests know? — 
it is too often muddy water which is poured into the thirsty 
mind of the child by the unskilled teacher. Perhaps his 
own inkid in a chaos of confusion ; perhaps he uses language 
more unintelligible than the words of the text he would 
VOL. x. v 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



explain. Clear, limpid streams of true, pare doctrine are 
"not poured upon the thirsty weakly souls of the little ones, 
and so, false and mistaken notions are instilled into their 
minds ; or at least, they are left in their own uncertain, 
childish views and convictions. 

III. So much for the sources of deficiency in adequate 
moral training of the young. We now come to consider its 
undesirable consequences. 

The child in whose mind erroneous opinions are formed 
and allowed to remain, will grow up either in thorough 
ignorance of true, sound principles, or, at least, with that 
deplorable confusion of ideas from which doubtful con- 
sciences — the copious sources of sin and misery — generally 
result. 4 What the boy does not learn, the man does not 

We have all experienced the strong force of early impres- 
sions and convictions. An idea takes possession of our 
mind; imperceptibly it grows stronger and stronger upon 
us, and in time it becomes a settled conviction, almost as 
strong as faith. We had not sufficient judgment to analyze 
it when we were children ; we iiever think of analyzing it 
when we grow older : we have taken it on faith, and it has 
become part of our faith. And when, sometimes by accident, 
we come to Bee the error and absurdity of it we are amazed, 
and, perhaps, rather ashamed of our stupidity. I remember 
once a student, an advanced student in theology, telling me 
of the revelation it was to him, when one day in conversa- 
tion with a companion his mind became suddenly illumed 
to the fact that to break the pledge was not a grievous sin ! 
And every confessor knows, especially in the case of the 
rude and uneducated, how commonly this same erroneous 
notion regarding the 4 pledge * prevails, and how many 
mortal sins, through this fatal ignorance, are committed. 
Surely this is a terrible effect of inadequate moral training. 
And what is true of the false notions concerning the ‘ sin 9 
of breaking the pledge is equally true, unfortunately, in many 
other matters — in the matter of deferring, lor instance, the 
penance received at confession ; of neglecting daily prayers ; 
of letting fall from their lips — even unintentionally — some 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



curse or indecent word. Adults, especially the ignorant and 
uncultivated, remain perfect children in matters of moral 
knowledge; the false notions they imbibe in childhood, if 
not eradicted, become for them certain convictions, and 
acting upon these, they are responsible for the guilt and 
sin into which, through their erroneous conscience, they are 
drawn. And it is an extremely difficult matter, at least 
amongst the class of persons I allude to, to obliterate these 
early impressions. 4 If false and fatal maxims/ says Bossuet, 
' are once permitted to enter the children’s minds, the tyranny 
of habit becomes so invincible in them that there is no 
remedy which can cure the evil. To prevent it becoming 
incurable it must be anticipated. 1 

Or, again, even if a thoroughly false conscience in many 
matters be not always the outcome of deficiency in moral 
training, there generally results at least a doubtful con- 
science, a chaotic uncertainty. When children’s school 
days are over, when they no longer attend the catechism 
class, if in their early years they are not made acquainted 
with the true, unvarnished principles of right and wrong, 
if they are allowed to remain in ignorance of every just 
criterion by which to form — to some degree at least — a 
sound judgment and a certain conscience ; then it commonly 
happens that they grow up to manhood with the same rash 
and confused opinions. 4 If teaching be inexact,’ says Father 
Potter, ‘and not strictly in conformity with the doctrine of 
the Church, the catechist will, in all probability, lay the 
foundation of a spirit of doubt and unbelief which will not 
fail to bring forth its unwholesome and poisonous fruit in 
due season.’ And this is equally true when the defective 
training proceeds from the other causes. Their religous 
education is over. They hear sermons, of course, some- 
times. But sermons are not calculated or intended to 
instruct in the elementary notions of moral knowledge, and 
so far from getting light in this respect from these vigorous 
denunciations of evil and eulogies of virtue, they are often 
only the more embarrassed and lead astray. And so they 
go on in their, at least, partial ignorance, beating the air 
with clouded and doubtful minds. They deliberately expose 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



themselves to the danger of committing gin ; they have a 
kind of idea that such a thing is wrong, maybe very wrong, 
but they are not sure ; they do not know how to put away 
the doubt, to form for themselves a safe and certain con- 
science — with undecided mind they commit the act. They 
will come to confession then, and they will ask us have they, 
by doing so and so, fallen into sin? as if objective and 
subjective were synonymous ! What misery and evil then 
result from this deplorable state of uncertainty, this blunted 
form of conscience — all the effect of deficient moral training 
— everyone for himself can plainly see. 

Another consequence of this deficiency is the paralyzing 
effect it has upon that sweet, generous, and easy piety which 
makes the practice of religion so attractive, especially to 
children. It causes their lives, which are generally so 
innocent in themselves* and which might and should be a 
free and loving service of their Heavenly Father, to be 
oftentimes miserable and unhappy. With false and mis- 
taken ideas of sin in their minds, it is generally with a 
servile fear they strive to observe the law of God, and their 
obedience is not a willing one. They know not the beauty 
of virtue ; piety is robbed of its charm. If children 
understood that by their little defects they were not at all 
separated from the love of God, not at all become objects of 
His hatred, deserving of terrible chastisements from a 
severe judge ; but yet that they were indeed grieving the 
tender heart of a pitying Father, Who knows and com- 
passionates their human frailty, Who is full of love and 
kindness and mercy ; how much more generous, happy and 
enamoured of goodness would they be ! On the contrary, 
how difficult it is for them to be attracted to piety and 
holiness, if they are persuaded that many of their common 
faults are grievous sins, by which they lose the favour and 
friendship of God and become objects of loathing in the 
sight of Heaven. They fall into those faults frequently, 
however they may regard them ; and deeming themselves 
then defiled by mortal guilt, their hearts become sad 
and unhappy, they get discouraged, they think it all too 
hard, they think it almost impossible to persevere, and 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



oftentimes they give up trying. This may not be true in 
many cases, but it is undoubtedly true in some, especially 
when children have delicate or scrupulous consciences, and 
when they are endeavouring, as best they may, to lead good 
Christian lives. How much more conducive to holiness it 
would be if they knew the simple truth. Falling then into 
their slight transgressions, they would not be cast down. 
They would know that they could easily cause the light 
cloud that rose up between them and God’s perfect love to 
disappear, by a little act of contrition, a little sorrowful 
prayer. They would know how to be always beginning 
again, as all of us must do. They would serve God with joy 
and filial devotion ; their lives would be more innocent and 
happy, and they would thereby strengthen their souls for 
the trials and temptations of maturer age. 

A child [as the author of Moral Training beautifully puts it] 
must take all things on faith, and if what he has been taught in 
childhood looks all the brighter and truer the older he grows, his 
character is founded and built on faith, for it has strengthened 
with his strength, and grown with his growth, giving him a 
simple upright soul, a strong clear intellect, and a brave trusting 

IV. I come now to consider the means (as far as regards 
the priest) by which the deficiency in the child’s moral 
training may be, to some extent at least, prevented or 

These means are : first, catechising by the priest 
himself, and secondly, a special attention to children’s 

Catechetical teaching comprises three things : the 

recitation of the words of the catechism, the explanation 
and instruction, and, above all, the moulding of the young 
soul into habits of virtue. It would be beyond the scope 
of the present article to dwell at length upon all three. 
I shall take up only that part of the work which may be 
effectively directed to the infusion of sound moral knowledge 
into the child’s mind. 

(1.) The priest himself should teach the catechism. ‘ Ad 
rec tores animarum spectat per seipsos pascere gregis sui 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



agaos,’ say the fathers of the Third Council of Baltimore . 1 
It is unnecessary to speak of the importance which 
should be attached to this sublime duty. The children, as 
St. Augustine says, are the priest’s ‘germen pium, exarnen 
novellum, flos honoris et fructus laboris, gaudium et corona.’ 
It is enough to remember that we priests are the fellow- 
workers and ministers of Him, Whose divine hands were laid 
with such infinite tenderness on the heads of the little ones 
Who is never so sweet and gentle and loving, as when He 
takes them to His heart and speaks to us of their interests. 
* The priest,’ Bishop Moriarity maintains, ‘ who would 
neglect every other instruction, and teach the catechism to 
the children of his parish, would have done a great deal. 
The priest who would discharge every other duty and 
neglect this, would have done nothing ’ Lay-teachers, even 
religious, although excellent assistants in the work of 
catechizing, are not fully competent to sow the seeds of 
spiritual knowledge. They are not theologians. They 
cannot be dogmatic in their teaching. The priest alone, by 
reason of his training, is qualified to explain and interpret 
authoritatively the precepts of the Christian doctrine; he 
alone is capable of implanting in the child’s mind those 
clear, true notions which will enable it to form a fairly 
correct judgment in matters of morality. The Third 
Council of Baltimore lays this down expressly: — ‘ Praecep- 
tores sacerdotali charactere non insigniti, sive religiosi sive 
laici, magno equidem sunt adjumento in juvenum institu- 
tione, at munus verbum Dei docendi sibi proprium non 

With regard to the method to be adopted in teaching the 
words of the catechism, Dr. Stang makes the following 
suggestion : — 4 We would advise young priests to teach 
catechism synthetically, and nob to use the analytical form ; 
not making the children first learn the lesson verbatim and 
then explaining, but first explaining it and then looking for 
answers.’ In the case of advanced pupils, and when the 
lessons are frequent and short, this method seems to be 

1 N. 217. a In lect. V. Dom in Alb . 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



preferable. For when a portion is first carefully explained, 
and the children required to commit the words to memory 
for the next class-day, they will do so with a far greater 
degree of interest and intelligence. They will also remember 
the true sense and meaning of what they learn much more 
easily than if they had first committed the answers to 
memory and were afterwards instructed on the meaning of 
the text. A few words from the catechist will bring back 
and permanently fix in their minds the explanation they 
have heard. 

For the catechetical instruction to be effectual in 
preventing the formation of confused and erroneous ideas, 
it must be clear and solid. It should also be made as 
interesting as possible. 

(a.) It must be clear. Quintilian’s precept is most 
appropriate : ‘ Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino non 
intelligere non possit, curandutn.’ The children should not 
only be able to understand, but we must so adapt our 
explanations to their capacity that it be impossible for them 
not to understand. To effect this, the instruction should 
be well divided, simple, and short. First, it should be well 
divided. The children must be told exactly what is going 
to be explained to them, the divisions of the subject and its 
connection with the last instruction. This will attract their 
attention and give them an intelligent interest in what they 
are about to hear. Without it the instruction will be weari- 
some and confusing, the children will be unable to follow it, 
and they will understand but little of what is said to them. 
If it be necessary to clearly announce the subject-matter 
and points of our sermons and instructions to grown people 
even, bow much more indispensably so is it not in the case 
of the young and untrained? Secondly, the instruction 
must be simple. There must be no exaggeration, nothing 
forced or contradictory, no subtle reasoning. 

The teacher's language [says Father Lambing in his Sunday 
School Teachers Manual] should, to be perfect, combine the 
simplicity of the child with the accuracy of the finished scholar. 
It should be his constant study to simplify his language as far as 
possible, never employing a word the meaning of which is not 
familiar to the least talented member of his class, 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



The catechist should become a child amongst children. 
He must put himself in their place, descend to their level, 
adapt his mode of speech to theirs, and patiently repeat over 
and over again what he says to them. Otherwise his instruc- 
tions, so far from enlightening the feeble intellect of the 
child, will, in all probability, be but a source of confusion 
and error. 4 Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne oranino non 
intelligere non possit, curandum.’ In the third place, for 
the instruction to be clear, it must necessarily be short and 

Children [says Fleury] cannot take in several ideas at once, 
nor understand their relation one with another: they do not 
speak continuously for long, and their sentences are short. In 
speaking to them we ought to imitate them, speak in short 
sentences, and he brief and exact. 

Their minds are compared to vases with narrow necks, 
into which, if we pour a liquid too abundantly, but little, if 
any, will enter; but if we gently pour it, drop by drop, with 
time and patience all of it goes in, and nothing is lost. It 
is the same with the child. The great maxim of St. Francis 
of Sales was, To say little , and to say that little very well . 
If the instruction be long the children will become weary 
and distracted. By nature they are restless, unable to con- 
centrate their attention upon anything except for a short 
time, and by burdening their memory we often only break 
it down altogether. 

( b .) Catechetical instruction must be solid and exact. I 
have alluded to the deplorable results of incorrect teaching 
when speaking of the causes of the child’s ignorance, and I 
need not repeat what I have said. The catechism is an 
explanation of the word of God, and this alone should safe- 
guard it from that disrespect which inexactness or disregard 
for truth in its teaching implies. Let the catechist denounce 
evil as strongly as he will ; let him endeavour, by every 
means his piety may suggest, to instil a hatred of vice and a 
love of virtue into the child’s mind ; but at the same time 
let him take all possible care not to create a false conscience 
in his impressionable young hearers. That would be a 
lamentable result of his efforts. Consequently he should 

Digitized by ^ 3 ooqLc 



not hesitate to let them know the truth ; he should clearly 
instruct the children on the degree of gravity that accom- 
panies the sins and defects against which he inveighs. The 
truth is the best. There are suffieiet motives to urge against 
vice, and by which to induce a love of virtue without having 
recourse to exaggeration or ‘ salutary ignorance.* And if in 
individual cases the enlightened sin the most, the fault is 
their own, the principle is not thereby affected. 

(c.) Finally instruction should be interesting and attrac- 
tive. Children are most effectively taught through their 
natural desire of being pleased. ‘ If the catechism/ says 
Fenelon, ‘be taught in a dry, cold, uninteresting 9tyle, 
naturally enough the children will pay little attention to it. 
They will be carried away by a thousand distractions.* The 
teacher should study how to vary the questions as much as 
possible, to break them up and dwell on their different 
parts, asking the children from time to time have they 
understood him so far. He should never put them a ques- 
tion which would be beyond their capacity; and when a 
more than ordinarily difficult one turns up, he should, 
without seeming to do so, insinuate the answer. In this 
way a lively interest will be created amongst the young 
learners, they will be agreeably surprised to find out that 
they are able to understand things so well and give intelli- 
gent answers, a healthy emulation will be excited amongst 
them, they will give their utmost attention, and the lesson 
will be got through with pleasure and profit. Examples, 
illustrations, and stories should be largely made use of. A 
good story is the most potent factor of all in making the 
instruction attractive. It helps the child, too, to understand 
the truths that are taught, it impresses them firmly on his 
mind, and fixes them in his memory as nothing else 
can. Mgr. Dupanloup recommends the catechist to pro- 
pose little cases of consciences from time to time, give 
wrong solutions on purpose, and get himself corrected by 
the children. There is no doubt that such a practice would 
make his instruction very pleasant for them, and help much 
to develop their reasoning powers. 

Catechetical instruction is a difficult work. Instruction 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



in any shape or form, to whatsoever class of listeners, is not 
easy. ‘To make definitions,’ says Pere Lacordaire, ‘ is the 
most difficult of all mental exercises/ And the making of 
clear definitions enters largely into the work of instructing. 
The difficulty is increased when it is with children we are 
dealing. Hence the necessity for careful preparation ; for, 
though it is certain that instruction, when it is clear and 
simple, will do much to brighten the dullest intellect, it is 
only when we know thoroughly and prepare diligently what 
we teach that we can be clear or simple. The catechist 
who does not study and carefully prepare beforehand what 
be is going to say will not be successful. He will be neither 
clear, brief, nor exact ; on the contrary, he will be obscure, 
prone to useless and wearisome repetitions, and often 
incorrect in his teaching. He will not know how to ‘ break 
the bread for the little ones * — the bread of knowledge, which 
should be meted out to them in tiny morsels, easily taken 
and retained, just as the mother dove crushes the grain of 
com before giving it to her young The Bishop of Orleans 
does not hesitate to confess that he spent sometimes two or 
three days, sometimes a whole week, of continuous work in 
preparation for certain difficult instructions. He maintains 
that four or five hours, at least, are to be devoted to this 
purpose, for he well knew that without due preparation the 
instruction ‘ runs a great risk of being vague, wordy, and 

(2.) In the second place, the priest can do much to prevent 
the formation and growth of erroneous ideas by devoting 
special attention to the child’s confession. As before, I do 
not mean to speak of this in all its details, but shall confine 
myself to its bearing upon the subject under consideration. 

And first let us see what the confessor should avoid. 
He should avoid two things : severity and irascibility in the 
first place, and dwelling overmuch on slight defects in the 
second. With no class of penitents should harshness be 
used in the confessional ; but in the case of children especial 
care must be taken, lest by an impatient or angry word their 
sensitive minds be overawed and their mouths closed. 

4 Cum pueris,’ says St. Alphonsus, ‘adhibere debet confessariu* 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



omneni caritatem et modos suaviores quantum fieri potest ' 1 
And Sfc. Francis of Sales : — 

I am not callous enough to treat my dear children severely. 
Had there been auything better than kindness, Jesus Christ would 
have told us so ; and yet He only gives us two lessons to learn of 
Him, meekness and humility of heart. Let him who is enamoured 
of severity begone from me, for I will have none of it. 

The confessor who treats his child-penitent with severity, 
instead of guiding the young soul in tho path of truth and 
holiness, will inevitably lead him sadly astray. Besides 
causing him to regard the sacrament of mercy as an ordeal 
from which he shrinks in fear, he will also oftentimes be 
instrumental in fostering in the child’s impressionable mind 
the growth or continuance of those erroneous notions which 
it should be his object to eradicate. In the second place, 
the confessor should not dwell too much on small trans- 
gressions and imperfections. To do so would be productive 
of results similar, to a certain extent at least, to those just 
mentioned. If the child has been guilty of mortal sin, the 
confessor should, of course, animadvert strongly upon this. 
If he accuse himself of venial sins only, he may be seriously 
admonished with regard to the more dangerous and wilfully 
committed. But on his numerous trifling defects, the 
confessor, keeping in mind that the manifestation of venial 
faults is by no means requisite, should not too closely or 
lengthily cross-examine. If this be not observed the child 
will only be confused and made unhappy, harassed with 
scruples, and his attention withdrawn from correcting his 
more serious offences. 

Having hinted at these defects, let us now see how the 
confessor should act in order to promote the formation of 
sound moral perceptions in his young penitents. 

To obtain candid and satisfactory as well as short con- 
fessions, it is most advisable to make use of prudent 
interrogation. (In passing, I may remark that children 
are much more easily induced to tell certain kinds of sins 
in their first confessions than afterwards. By judicious 
interrogation we can get them then to disclose everything. 

1 Praxis Confes, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



But if there be some matters which they find it hard to 
mention, and are not helped out of the difficulty, it often 
happens that in their subsequent confessions, no matter 
how they be questioned, they will not be able to overcome 
their repugnance to manifest their concealed sins. It is 
especially desirable, therefore, in the first confessions of the 
child, that a careful interrogation be employed.) Many 
children do not know how to tell their sins ; they have not 
been properly instructed on the matter, and left to themselves 
they form the strangest notions. Some will tell us abso- 
lutely nothing ; others will accuse themselves of almost all 
the sins they find in the prayer-book. Some are so sensitive 
and nervous that they find it well-nigh impossible to con- 
fess certain faults ; others so rude or ingenuous that they 
will rush on to undesirable manifestation of details before 
we can stop them. The remedy for all this is prudent 
interrogation. From clear questions put to them they will 
learn best how to examine their consciences and to accuse 
themselves with accuracy, candour and modesty. They will 
be taught practically how to make their confessions. We 
know, too, that most children like to be interrogated ; it 
takes the burden off their shoulders ; they are far and away 
more satisfied than if left to themselves, no matter how 
well they may be prepared. To bring about these happy 
results is surely a sufficient recompense for the time and 
trouble it may cost the confessor. 

With regard to the matters on which they are to be 
questioned, these, as I insinuated above, should not be 
trivial. The interrogation should be, for the most part, on 
serious offences. St. Alphonsus 1 finds fault with confessors 
who go into too much detail with the child. 

Let them ask him [says the holy Doctor] — 1st. Whether he has 
concealed any sin in a former confession. 2nd. Whether he 
has blasphemed against God and His saints. 3rd. Whether he has 
neglected to assist at Mass on Sundays or holidays of obligation. 
4th. Whether he has struck his parents, disobeyed them, spoken 
injuriously of, or uttered imprecations against them. 5th. Whether 
he has been immodest. 6th. Whether he has injured his neighbour, 

x Praxis Confes . 

Digitized by t^ooQle 

the Moral training ;of children 

23 1 

or stolen anything from him. 7th. Whether he has spoken 
uncharitably of anyone. 8th. Whether he has eaten meat on the 
forbidden days ; satisfied the pasehal duty. 

How different is this examen from those found in the 
prayer-books to which I referred above ? Of course 
St. Alphonsus does not mean that this list is to be always 
strictly adhered to. He wrote for priests, and knew that 
they would use their judgment. Hence he omits to speak 
of the number of times the sins have been committed. 
But the saint clearly shows that superfluous questioning is 
to be avoided, and that the confessor’s attention should be 
chiefly directed to the more grave faults of the child. By 
judicious interrogation of this kind he will inspire his young 
penitents with a horror of mortal sin and a fear of anything 
calculated to lead on to it ; he will prevent the formation or 
growth of erroneous ideas regarding the gravity of their 
sins, create in them a safe and certain conscience, and 
teach them to use their reasoning powers with dis- 

Moreover the confessor should abstain from interrogating 
the child on the manner in which certain sins are committed. 
It is certain that * circumstantiae aggravantes intra eamdem 
speciem ’ per se need not be manifested. In dealing with 
children, especially in delicate matters, this is of fullest 
application. Even though they are ready and willing to 
explain matters, they should be gently admonished not to 
do so and made to understand that it is unnecessary. This 
may afterwards save them from anxious doubts and scruples 
and even from sacrilegious silence ; for it not unfrequently 
happens with regard to certain sins that the circumstances 
are of much more difficult revelation than the sin itself. 

And this brings me to the last suggestion I have to 
make. Tbe confessor should, not merely by using these 
negative means, but also by positive instruction, enlighten 
the child’s mind with regard to the gravity of his offences. 
If he believes that his penitent is persuaded that such or 
such a venial fault is a grievous sin (and he can form a fairly 
correct judgment on the matter from the manner in which 
the child confesses it, the degree of intelligence it is gifted 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



with, etc.), he should at once remove the false impression. 
Even though he only suspects such to be the case he ought 
to let the child know the strict truth. What is more, I will 
even say, that in some cases he would do well to find out 
from the child itself its conception of gravity regarding its 
common faults, in order, if necessary, to correct it. It may 
be objected that all this would make children’s confessions 
too difficult and onerous for the confessor himself. I admit 
it is troublesome ; but it is a labour of love, a work of the most 
tender charity to the little ones, and o ne, we may be sure, 
that is very dear to the Heart of Jesus — the children’s own 
Friend. Moreover, when the child is a regular penitent of 
ours, the work once done iB done for always; the joy he feels 
from the happy revelation is too great to allow him to forget 
what he has learned. When the child knows the truth, 
we can then speak on certain sins as strongly as we wish 
without danger of misconception ; as I said before, there 
are sufficiently strong motives to advance without leaving 
him in doubt or ignorance. Finally, it should be the priest’s 
aim to make goodness and piety attractive to the child by 
putting before him motives of love and gratitude rather 
than of fear in order to withdraw him from vice. His mind 
is very impressionable, his heart is very pure; and the 
present fear of displeasing and being ungrateful to his 
loving Redeemer is much more potent to fill his soul with a 
dislike for sin that any consideration of future far-off 
punishments could be. 

In conclusion, I have pointed out the existence of 
deficiency of adequate moral perception in the minds of the 
young, the causes that produce it, the undesirable conse- 
quences that result from it, and I have suggested some 
means whereby it may be prevented or remedied. It will 
be admitted, I think, that there is a great deal of truth in 
what I have said, though perhaps in some things all will 
not entirely agree with me. Individuals may devote time 
and attention to the matter, but it is not often that it is 
made the subject of open discussion and express considera- 
tion. To make the lives of the little ones more bright and 
holy and happy has been my motive, and there are none so 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



fitted to do this as those for whom those thoughts are 
written down — the earthly ministers of Him who has 
said: — ‘^ui susceperit unum parvulum talem in nomine 
meo, me suscipit.* 

R. E. FlTZHENIiY, M.SS„ D.Ph. 



T HERE is no denying that Dr. Salmon has shown very 
considerable cleverness in his attack on the Catholic 
Church. But it is cleverness very sadly misapplied. And as 
he is very far from being the most formidable of her assailants, 
he cannot expect to succeed where even the gates of hell are 
foredoomed to fail. His charge against the Church of new 
doctrines and new articles of faitb, of change in doctrine, 
is, to the unthinking, or to those who have been taught to 
think wrongly, the most grave that could be made. And it 
is also one of the most groundless, and can be made only 
by one who does not know, or who knowingly misrepresents 
the office and character of the Church. With the Catholic 
Church, the true Church of Christ, new doctrines are a 
simple impossibility. She received from her Divine Founder 
the entire, full, complete deposit of faith. She has held it 
full and complete from the beginning ; and she shall hold it 
unimpaired till the end of time.. As St. Vincent of Lerins 
says : ‘ She loses nothing that is hers ; she adopts nothing 
that is not hers.* What Dr. Salmon calls a 4 new doctrine * 
is simply a statement of some truth that has been in her 
keeping from the beginning ; and in taking that statement 
from the deposit of faitb, and in teaching it to her children, 
the Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost the 
Spirit of Truth, 4 Going therefore teach all nations . . . 

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you, and behold I am writh you all days, even to the 
consummation of the world.* ‘ The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you 
all things, and bring all things to your mind whatsoever I 
shall have said to you/ Here, then, is the Church’s warrant 
to teach. Her premises are God’s own revelation, infallibly 
true, fixed and definite from the first ; and in her process of 
interpreting it, the Holy Ghost is her guide, and owing to 
Hi 8 guidance she cannot betray her trust : she can neither 
mistake the extent of her commission, nor the meaning of 
any portion of it. And when therefore, under such guidance, 
she declares, that a certain doctrine is contained in the 
deposit of faith, is part of it, her declaration must be true, 
and therefore the doctrine is not new , but as old as the 
Christian Revelation. 

This follows directly and immediately from the Infalli- 
bility of the Church ; and the Catholic who accepts that 
doctrine, accepts all this as a matter of course. He knows that 
in believing what the Church teaches, he is believing what our 
Lord revealed to His Apostles, and what they committed to 
the Church from which he now accepts it. And he not 
only accepts the actual teaching of the Church, but he is 
prepared, and for the very same reason that he accepts 
what she now teaches, to accept also whatever she may in 
the future make known to him. Any increase of religious 
knowledge imparted to him by the Church is welcome to 
the Catholic, its truth and its antiquity are to him a fore- 
gone conclusion. He knows that it is part of that body of 
truth which he had already accepted unreoervedly, and in its 
entirety — that it is a fuller meaning of some truth which he 
had already belived — that it now comes to him on the same 
authority on which all his faith rests ; and by reason of that 
additional light and knowlege he accepts now explicitly 
what he had hitherto implicitly believed. This is no more 
than saying that a Catholic is a Catholic, that he really 
believes what he professes to believe ; and for such a person 
new doctrines in the sense imputed by Dr. Salmon are im- 
possible. By new doctrines Dr. Salmon means doctrines that 
were not revealed at all — false doctrines — and he gives as 
instances the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility % 
But Catholics know that the Church defines nothing that 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



was not in her keeping from the beginning — nothing new — 
and the very fact of their definition is to the Catholic a proof 
that these doctrines formed a part of the original revelation ; 
and later on Dr. Salmon shall be supplied with evidence of 
the unmistakable traces of these doctrines in Catholic 

The mental attitude of Catholics Dr. Salmon does not 
realise at all, and hence it is that he makes such silly 
charges against us. He never loses an opportunity of 
saying hard things of the Oxford converts for their unpar- 
donable sin of abandoning Protestantism in order to save 
their souls. He says of them : — 

Perhaps those who then submitted to the Church of Rome 
scarcely realised all that was meant in their profession of faith in 
their*new guide. They may have thought it meant no more than 
belief that everything the Church of Rome then taught was 
infallibly true. Events soon taught them that it meant besides 
that they must believe everything that that Church might after- 
wards teach, and her subsequent teaching put so great a strain 
on the faith of the new converts that in a few cases it was more 
than it could bear. (Page 19.) 

'And later on (page 62) he gives Mr. Capes as an 
instance of one who found the strain too great, though, 
according to Dr. Salmon’s own version of the case, Mr. Capes 
left the Catholic Church because he refused to accept a 
doctrine which the Church taught at the very time he joined 
her. Now, if any of the converts alluded to came into the 
Church :n the state of mind described by Dr. Salmon, they 
really were not Catholics at all. They had not accepted 
that which is the foundation of the whole Catholic system 
— the authority of the teaching Church, which involves 
belief in anything the Church may teach in the future as well 
as acceptance of what she actually teaches. And converts 
coming into the Church are well aware of this, for it is fully 
explained to them. The Catholic Church does not blindfold 
those who come to join her, notwithstanding Dr. Salmon’s 
confident hypothesis. It is not to make up numbers that 
she receives converts. They must be instructed before they 
are received, and no priest could, without sin, knowingly 

VOL. x. Q 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



receive into the Church one so ill-instructed as Dr. Salmon 
supposes some of the converts to have been. 

Dr. Salmon says of Mr. Mallock that ‘ he criticised other 
people’s beliefs and disbeliefs so freely, that it was hard to 
know what he believed or did not believe himself’ (page 60). 
These words are strictly applicable to Dr. Salmon himself. 
With the exception of a few vague references to what 4 a 
prayer-full man,* may find in tbe Bible, he gives no clue to 
his own creed. He boasts of 4 the strength of his conviction 
of the baselessness of the case made by the Romish advo- 
cates ’ (page 14) ; he is quite sure that all distinctive Catholic 
doctrines form 4 no part of primitive Christianity.’ But 
this is all negative, and all through his Lectures his teaching 
is of the same sort Thus he tells us what he does not 
believe ; but as to what he does believe, we are left totally 
in the dark. But such is his idea of faith, that it really ctoes 
not matter much, whether the articles of his creed be few 
or many, for his faith is purely human. It is not the argu- 
ment of things unseen ; not the testimony 4 greater than that 
of man;* not an assent in nothing wavering; not therefore 
the root and foundation of justification, but a merely human 
faith, probable, hesitating, doubtful, with no higher certainty 
than mere unaided human reason can give it. Dr. Salmon 
believes iu tbe truths of Christianity (if he believes them at 
all) on exactly the same grounds, and with exactly the same 
certainty, as he believes in the career of Julius Caesar. 
Tacitus and Suetonius give him the same certainty as 
St. Matthew and St. Luke. His own words are : — 

That Jesus Christ lived more than eighteen centuries ago ; 
that He died, rose again, and taught such and such doctrines, are 
things proved by the same kind of argument as that by which we 
know that Augustus was Emperor of Eome, and that there is 
such a country as China. Whether or not He founded a Church ; 
whether He bestowed the gift of infallibility on it, and whether 
He fixed the seat of that infallibility at Rome, are things to be 
proved, if proved at all, by arguments which a logician would 
class as probable. (Page 63.) . . . We are certain, for instance, 
that there was such a man as Julius Caesar. We may call 
ourselves certain about the principal events of his life ; but when 
you go into details, and inquire, for instance, what knowledge he 

Digitized by 



had of Cataline’s conspiracy, you soon come to questions, to which 
you can only give probable, or doubtful answers, and it is just the 
same as to the facts of Christianity. (Page 74.) 

And for all this he had prepared his bearers by telling 
them (page 48) that * it must be remembered that our belief 
must in the end rest on an act of our own judgment, and 
can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that 
may be able to give us ’ (page 48). These sentiments are 
again aud again repeated in Dr. Salmon’s Lectures ; and in 
them we have the key to the nature and value of his faith, 
as well as to the character of his declamation against the 
Catholic Church. He devotes a great part of his Third 
Lecture to the right of private judgment, or rather he insists 
o?v the necessity of private judgment (page 48). And here 
again he transcribes almost word for word, and without 
acknowledgment, Whately’s Cautions for the Times . All 
through the lecture be is confounding private judgment with 
the legitimate exercise of reason, and he so represents 
Catholics as if they condemned all exercise of reason with 
reference to the truths of faith. Now, Dr. Salmon must be 
well aware that private judgment has a well-recognised 
meaning in theological controversy. It means the opinion 
of the individual as opposed to external authority ; it means 
the right of the individual to determine for himself, and quite 
independently of all external control, what he is to believe 
or not to believe. But private judgment is not a synonym 
for reason, and in condemning it in its controversial sense, 
Catholics do not interfere in the slightest degree with the 
legitimate use of reason. Let us use our reason by all means. 
St. Paul reminds us of that duty. But in establishing His 
Church, and com niasiouing her to teach the nations, our 
Lord Himself condemned private judgment in its contro- 
versial sense, and the Catholic Church only repeats that 
condemnation. We must use our reason. A fool cannot 
make an act of faith. And this is really all that Dr. Salmon’s 
declamation comes to. 

But in his zeal to make a case against us the Doctor 
Bhows that he has himself no divine supernatural faith at all. 
4 Our belief,’ he says, 1 must in the end rest on an act of oflr 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty 
than whatever that may be able to give us’ (page 48). 
This statement is completely subversive of faith ; it is an 
enunciation of rationalism, pure and simple If Dr. Salmon’s 
belief is to rest ultimately on his own judgment, then his 
faith is human, and Huxley, whose judgment was at least as 
reliable as Dr. Salmon’s, had as good grounds for rejecting 
the Bible as Dr. Salmon has for accepting it. It is well 
that he has stated so clearly the fundamental principle of 
Protestantism — a principle which robs faith of its super- 
natural character, and which has given to Protestant countries 
as many creeds as there are individuals. If each one’s faith 
is to rest ultimately on each one’s judgment, we are not to 
be surprised at the harmony and unity that are a note of 
what Dr. Salmon calls his Church. Pope’s lines are strictly 
true of it : — 

’Tis with our judgments, as our watches, none 

Go just alike, yet each believes his own. 

It must be presumed that Dr. Salmon is contemplating 
that faith without which * it is impossible to please God * 
— supernatural, divine faith — but he is completely astray as 
to its motive and nature. Supernatural divine faith does 
not rest ultimately ‘ on an act of our own judgment,' but on 
the authority of God revealing the truth we are to believe. 
We believe the Trinity, the Incarnation, Redemption, not 
because 1 an act of oar own judgment ’ shows them to be 
true, but because God has revealed them. Dr. Salmon 
confounds the motive of faith with the motives of credibility. 
For an act of faith we require a revelation and evidence of 
the fact of revelation. The motives of credibility are those 
reasons which satisfy us that the revelation is from God — 
that God has spoken. They are those which establish the 
divine origin of the Christian faith generally — miracles, 
prophecies, the wonderful propagation and preservation of 
the faith, its salutary effect on mankind, etc. All these 
supply us with a wide and legitimate field for the exercise 
of our reason, and within that field Catholics do exercise 
their reason, and according to their circumstances they are 

Digitized by CjOoq Le 



bound to do so. These motives of credibility lead us to 
believe that a revelation has been made ; they are a pre- 
liminary to faith, but they are not the motive of faith, or 
any part of that motive. They do not enter into the act of 
faith at all. Because of them we believe in the existence of 
the revelation, but the revelation itself we believe on the 
authority of God Whose word it is. And belief resting on 
any motive inferior to this would not be divine faith at all, 
and could not be the means of saving our souls. Dr. Salmon 
tells his students that faith is the outcome of their own 
judgment (and it is to be hoped that they are all profound 
thinkers), but St. Paul tells them : ‘By grace you are 
saved, through faith, and this not of ourselves, for it is the 
gift of God.’ 1 And the same saint said to the The3salonians : 

4 When you had received of us, the word of the hearing of 
God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is 
indeed) the word of God, Who worketh in you that have 
believed.’ 1 According to St. Paul there is in faith some- 
thing which we do not owe to our own talents or judgments, 
but which is God’s gift directly. And in strict accordance 
with this doctrine of St. Paul, is the teaching of the Vatican 
Council. It says : — 

But that faith which is the beginning of man’s salvation, the 
Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, whereby 
enlightened, and aided by God’s grace, we believe those things 
which He has revealed to be true, not because of the intrinsic 
truth of them, known from the natural light of reason, but 
because of the authority of God revealing them. 

And the Council pronounces au anathema against those 
who hold, as Dr. Salmon does, that for divine faith it is not 
necessary that the revelation should be believed on the autho- 
rity of God revealing. With this supernatural divine faith 
illuminating and elevating the soul, what a sad contrast is 
presented by Dr. Salmon’s bald rationalism — 1 the act of his 
own judgment.’ And the saddest feature of the contrast is the 
spiritual blight and ruin which Dr. Salmon’s theory involves. 
Supernatural faith is necessary for salvation, and the Doctor's 

1 Ephes. ii. 8. 

7 1 Thea. ii 13. 

Digitized by Google 


faith is not supernatural. It is purely human, and can have 
no more influence in saving souls than th3 latest theory 
on electricity. And as Dr. Salmon’s faith is purely human, 
he is quite logical (though quite wrong), in saying that it 
can attain to no higher certainty than reason cam give it ; 
and that his belief in our Lord’s life and teaching comes to 
him in the same way as his belief in the career of Augustus 
Caesar — that it is merely a hesitating, doubting, absent, at 
best only a probability. The Doctor professes a profound 
knowledge of, and an intimate acquaintance with, Scripture ; 
and yet nothing can be more clear and explicit tham the 
Scriptural condemnation of his theory of faith. In texts 
almost innumerable faith is spoken of, not as the doubting, 
hesitating, probable opinion that he describes it, but as an 
assent to God’s word full, firm, and unhesitating. 4 If you 
shall have faith, and doubt not,’ said our Lord to His 
disciples, 1 where He clearly describes doubt as incompatible 
with faith. 4 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know most 
certainly that God hath made b6th Lord and Christ, this 
same Jesus whom you have crucified.’ 2 ‘ For I am certain 

that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, 
nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come . . . 

shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in 
Christ Jesus our Lord.’* ‘For I know whom I have 
believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which 
I have committed unto him against that day.’i ‘Ask in 
faith, nothing wavering,’ says St. James? Nothing can be 
clearer then, than that faith , according to Scripture, is a 
firm, unhesitating, unwavering, assent to God’s word. 
Those who hesitate are described as having 4 little faith ’ or 
no faith. Faith and doubt are regarded as incompatible. 
And this is precisely the teaching of the Catholic Church. 
The Vatican Council, in the 3rd chapter Be Fide , tells 
ns that we are bound to give to God’s revelation ‘the 
full obedience of our intellects and of our wills.’ And it 
further asserts that ‘our faith rests on the most firm of all 

1 Matt, xxi. 21. * 2 Tim. i. 12. 

2 Acts ii. 36. 5 2 J \ 6. 

* Romanb viii. 38, 39. 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



foundations ’ — the authority of God brought home to us by 
His Church. When, therefore, Dr. Salmon told his students 
that ‘ our belief must in the end rest on an act of our own 
judgment,* and can have no higher authority, he is con- 
tradicting the express language of Scripture as well as the 
express teaching of the Catholic Church ; and he is leading 
his students astray on the most vitally important of all 
subjects — the nature of saving faith. It is clear that he 
has no real conception of any supernatural element in faith ; 
and hence it is that he seeks to ridicule the idea that there 
is any such, or that Catholics can have any certainty in 
matters of faith -above what unaided reason can give. 

I mean [he says] to say something about the theory of the 
supernatural gift of faith as laid down at the Vatican Council, 
merely remarking now that the theory of a supernatural endow- 
ment superseding in matters of religion the ordinary laws of 
reasoning, an endowment to question which involves deadly peril, 
deters Roman Catholics from all straightforward seeking for 
truth. (Pages 62, 63.) 

And what he has to say is this : — ‘ They are not naturally 
infallible, but God has made them so. It is by a super- 
natural gift of faith that they accept the Church’s teaching, 
and have a divinely inspired certainty that they are in the 
right* (page 81). And he quotes the Vatican Council in 
proof of his statement, though there is nothing whatever in 
the Council that would give him the slightest countenance. 
We do not claim any gift, supernatural or otherwise, 

4 superseding in matters of religion the ordinary laws of 
reasoning.’ These laws we lespect and adhere to with far 
more consistency and persistency than Dr. Salmon shows 
in his own conduct. If misquotation and misrepresentation 
be in accordance with ‘ the ordinary laws of reasoning,’ 
then Dr. Salmon is a profound logician ! We do not claim 
to be infallible, either naturally, or supernaturally ; we do 
not claim ‘ a divinely inspired certainty that we are in the 
right,* and the Vatican Council give no grounds whatever 
for those ridiculous statements. We have in the Church an 
infallible guide, and as long as we follow her guidance we are 
certain of the truth of our faith. But we are not infallible, for 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



through our own fault we may cease to follow the Church’s 
guidance, and thus may fall away, and lose the faith. As 
long as we are loyal children of the Church we are certain 
of the truth of our faith, but that certainty does not come 
to us by inspiration. We do not then make the claims 
attributed to us by Dr. Salmon. But we do claim with the 
Vatican Council, and hold as of faith, that we cannot make 
a salutary act of faith without actual grace enlightening 
our intellects to see the truth and inclining our wills to 
embrace it. And this claim of ours is not new, as 
Dr. Salmon ought to know. Our Lord Himself says : — 4 No 
man can come to Me, except the Father, who hath sent Me, 
draw him.* 1 ‘ By grace you are saved through faith, and that 
not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God.’* Actual grace is 
necessary for all those acts that prepare us for justification, 
and especially necessary for the more arduous and difficult 
acts which are opposed to our own passions and prejudices, 
and Dr. Salmon must be very oblivious of early Church 
history if he venture to doubt this. To say nothing of 
other fathers the writings of St. Augustine against Serni- 
Pelagianism would supply him with abundant proofs of the 
necessity of illuminating and helping grace, and would 
show him also that only heretics questioned- that necessity. 
The Second Council of Orange (a.d. 529) in its seventh 
canon says : — 

If anyone asserts that by our natural powers we shall 
determine or embrace any good thing that pertains to eternal life, 
or that we shall assent, as we ought, to the salutary preaching of 
the Gospel without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost, who gives to all sweetness in assenting and in believing 
the truth, that person is deceived by the heretical spirit, and does 
not understand the voice of God saying in the Gospel * without 
Me you can do nothing f (John xv. 5), or that of the Apostle, 4 not 
that wo are able to think anything of ourselves, as from ourselves, 
but all our sufficiency is from God * (2 Cor. iii. 5). 

The sentiment reprobated in such forcible language in 
this canon is exactly Dr. Salmon’s, and it did not occur to 
him when he ridiculed the statement of the Vatican Council 
as false and new, that that statement was taken word for 

1 John vi. 44. 2 Epliea. ii. 8, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



word from the canon of the Council of Orange just men- 
tioned. If the Doctor had given some time and thought to 
the study of the important and difficult subject on which he 
lectured so glibly, he would not have made such an exhibi- 
tion of his levity and of his ignorance by ridiculing as false 
and new a doctrine which our Blessed Lord Himself revealed 
most explicitly, and which His Church has held and taught 
ever since her foundation. Cardinal Newman, so frequently 
misquoted by Dr. Salmon, puts this matter, with his wonted 
force and clearness, as follows : — 

Faith is the gift of God, and not a mere act of our own, which 
we are free to exert when we will. It is quite distinct from an 
exercise of reason though it follows upon it. I may feel the force 
of the argument for the Divine origin of the Church I may see 
that I ought to believe, and yet I may be unable to believe. . . 

Faith is not a mere conviction in reason ; it is a firm assent ; it is 
a clear certainty, greater than any other certainty, and this 
is wrought in the mind by the grace of God, and by it alone. As 
then men may be convinced, and not act according to their con- 
viction, so they may be convinced, and not believe according to their 
conviction. . . . In a word, the arguments foi religion do not 

compel anyone to believe, just as arguments for good conduct do not 
compel anyone to obey. Obedience is the consequence of willing 
to obey, and faith is the consequence of willing to believe. We 
may see what is right, whether in matters of faith or obedience, of 
ourselves, but we cannot will what is right without the grace of 
God. 1 

Instead of reading such extracts for his students, 
Dr. Salmon falls back on ‘an act of his own judgment,’ 
and with very unsatisfactory results. After his disserta- 
tion on private judgment he proceeds. as follows, feeling 
apparently that the Catholic Church must go down before 
bis assault: — 

We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private 
judgment in one act or in a great many ; but exercise it in one 
way or another we must. We may apply our private judgment 
separately to the different questions in controversy — purgatory, 
transubstautiation, invocation of saints, and so forth — and come 
to our own conclusions on each, or we may apply our private 
judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infal- 
lible, etc. (Page 48.) ... It is certain enough that what God 
revealed is true ; but, if it is not certain that He has revealed the 

1 Discourses to Mixed Congregations, Di«. XL. pp 260, 26!. Ed. 1862, 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



infallibility of the Roman Church, then we cannot have certain 
assurance of the truth of that doctrine, or of anything that is 
founded on it. (Pages 63, 64.) 

Here again the Doctor is illogical and misleading. He 
will have to determine whether the Church of Christ is 
infallible and indefectible also ; and since this is certain and 
has been proved, he will then have to exercise his judgment 
in determing which of the existing bodies is that Church of 
Christ. It must, at all events, profess the doctrine of infal- 
libility, for that doctrine is revealed and true; but since 
only one of the competitors holds that doctrine, it follows 
that, if the Church of Christ be existing on earth at all, it 
must be that one which Dr. Salmon calls the Church of 
Rome. This is the logical way for Dr Salmon to use his 
reason, and it will lead to conclusions very different from 
those of his lectures. It is a wide field, and a legitimate 
one, for the exercise of his judgment. But to apply it 
‘ separately to purgatory, transubstantiation, and the invo- 
cation of saints * is to abuse it. Only the Church can speak 
with authority on such questions. These are doctrines that 
cannot be proved as it is proved that Augustus was Emperor 
of Rome or that there is such a country as China and 
faith founded on such arguments will avail very little for 
Dr. Salmon in the day of his need. It was not faith founded 
on such arguments that gave St. Paul the certainty of which 
he speaks in his Epistle to the Romans ; 1 it was not such 
faith that enabled St. Stephen to * see the heavens opened, 
and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God * ;* it 
was not such faith that sustained St. Laurence on the grid- 
iron, or that ever enabled anyone to ‘ take up his cross and 
follow ’ our Divine Lord. Such faith as Dr. Salmon contem- 
plates can bring no real consolation in this life, and can 
inspire no hope for the life to come. Resting on an act of 
his own judgment, like his belief in the exploits of Caesar or 
Napoleon Buonaparte, it does not go outside the sphere of 
mere reason ; and hence it is that he seems to know 
nothing of the elevating, assuring, sustaining character of 
divine faith, and nothing of the effect of grace on the soul. 

1 viii. 38. 4 Actsvii. 55. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Grace and the supernatural are to Dr. Salmon unintelligible 
terms. He cannot enter into the views of Catholics regard- 
ing them ; he cannot understand the certainty, the peace of 
soul, the i sweetness in believing/ which the gift of faith 
brings to Catholics. All this he caricatures, though he 
cannot comprehend it. By pandering to the prejudices of 
young men not overburthened with knowledge, he may 
secure an audience in his class-room and the character of 
champion of Protestantism, but he should not forget that 
these young men have souls to save, and that it is only 
divine faith can save them. His references to * the prayerful 
man 1 and to the Bible as a safeguard against Romanism are 
vague platitudes. The private judgment which he extols 
used to be the Protestant substitute for Pope and Church ; 
but 1 modem criticism 9 has killed it, and all Dr. Salmon’s 
art cannot bring it back to life. Por the advocates of the 
Bible, interpreted by private judgment, the vital question 
now is : How much of the Bible is left for private judgment 
to interpret ? And if Dr. Salmon had given his attention 
to this question, his time would have been more usefully as 
well os more charitably spent than it is in bearing false 
witness against us. 

Dr. Salmon was able to give his students the welcome 
assurance that Catholics we re so shattered by the logic of con- 
troversialists of his own class and calibre that new methods 
of defence had been recently resorted to, but, of course, with 
no prospect of success. The new defences are Newman’s 
Theory of Development , and the theory contained in his 
Grammar of Assent. These were, he told them, specially 
designed to meet the exigencies of controversy, but have 
failed to do so. In his First Lecture Dr. Salmon warned his 
students not to identify the statements of particular divines 
with the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and yet he 
is doing ju3t that himself all through his Lectures. The 
works named are represented by him as if they were the very 
foundation of the Catholic system, essential to its existence. 
That he should have introduced them into his argument at all, 
shows how confidently he relied on the intellectual character 
. of his audience. For surely Cardinal Newman is not the 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



Catholic Church, and the Church has not adopted the works 
named, nor given any official sanction to either of them ; and 
therefore she is in no sense whatever responsible for them, 
and whether the theories and arguments of the works named 
be sound or unsound, the Church is in no way concerned. 
The Grammar of Assent is, as the very name implies, 
an attempt to explain the mental process by which men 
anive at their beliefs. The greater part of the book has just 
as much interest for Protestants as for Catholics. Only one 
section of the fifth chapter has any special interest for 
Catholics, and even that section is merely explanatory, 
showing how the philosophical principles laid down in the 
previous chapter may be applied to dogmatic truths. The 
late Cardinal Cullen said of the Grammar of Assent that it 
was ‘a hard nut to crack,’ and Dr. Salmon does not seem 
to have seriously attempted the operation. And after all 
his declamation he is forced to admit that Catholics are in 
no sense concerned with the book. He says : — 

When Newman’s book first came out one could constantly see 
traces of its influences in Roman Catholic articles in magazines 
and reviews. Now it seems to have dropped very much out 
of sight, and the highest Roman Catholic authorities lay quite 
a different basis for their faith. (Page 78.) 

The basis of Catholic faith has been laid down not by 
‘ Roman Catholic authorities/ but by our Blessed Lord 
Himself, and considered, as an attempt to use the Grammar 
of Assent , as a weapon against that faith, the net result of 
Dr. Salmon’s long lecture is — nothing . Let us see how he 
succeeds with the Essay on Development . 

It is, he says, a theory devised to cover our retreat before 
the overwhelming force of Protestant logic. ‘ The Romish 
champions, beaten out of the open field, have shut them- 
selves up in the fortress of infallibility’ (page 4G). But while 
retreating ‘the first strategic movement towards the rear 
was the doctrine of development, which has seriously modi- 
fied the old theory of tradition’ (page 31). It must be owing 
to his propensity to misrepresent that he substitutes the 
absurd expression ‘doctrine of development’ for Newman’s 
own words ‘ development of doctrine * ; but he distinctly 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



states that it was an invention to meet a difficulty. ‘ The 
starting of this theory/ he says, ‘ exhibits plainly the total 
rout which the champions of the Romish Church experienced 
in the battle they attempted to fight on the field of history 
... it is, in short, an attempt to enable men beaten off 
the platform of history to hang on to it by the eyelids/ 
Though this extract would lead one to infer that the theory 
was not previously heard of he says, lower down, that the 
theory was not new, for it was maintained by Mochler and 
Perrone, and even a century earlier than their time. 

But Newman's book had the effect of making it popular to an 
extent it had never been before, and of causing its general adoption 
by Romish advocates, who are now content to exchange tradition, 
which their predecessors had made the basis of their system, for 
this new foundation of development. (Page 31.) . . . When 
Newman's book appeared I looked with much curiosity to see 
whether the heads of the Church to which he was joining himself 
would accept the defence made by their new convert, the book 
having been written before he had joined them ... it seemed a 
complete abandonment of the old traditional theory of the advocates 
of Rome.* (Page 33.) 

Later on he says: ‘This theory of development, so 
fashionable thirty years ago, has now dropped into the 
background * (page 41). And later on still, in his Seventh 
Lecture, he says the theory 1 has now become fashionable ’ 
(page 113). What are we to think of this extraordinary 
theory, or the data given by Dr. Salmon? It is a new 
theory, and an old one, accepted by us and discarded ; vital 
to us, and useless to us, and all, at the same time, according 
to this inimitable logician ! Leaving to his juvenile contro- 
versialists the task of assimilating this mass of contradic- 
tions, it is quite sufficient to remind the Regius Professor 
that the Catholic Church is in no sense whatever responsible 
for the Essay on Development . It was written, as Dr. Salmon 
himself states, before its author became a Catholic ; and if 
the Doctor had looked at the preface of the Essay he would 
have seen the following : ‘His (the author’s) first act on 
his conversion was to offer his work for revision to the 
proper authorities ; but the offer was declined, on the ground 
that it was written and partly printed before he was a 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



Catholic ’ (Pref.p. x). This showshow little the Catholic Church 
is concerned with the theory or with the arguments of the 
Essay ; and how grossly unfair, even to his own students, is 
the mass of misrepresentation piled up by Dr. Salmon, on the 
false assumption that the Church is concerned with it. The 
development of Christian doctrine is as old as Christianity 
itself. St. Peter’s first sermon on the first Pentecost is an 
instance of it, and so too are the proofs and explanations of 
doctrine to be found in the New Testament, and in the 
early councils and early fathers, St. Vincent of Lerins pro- 
pounded it as a formal theory. So far from supplanting 
tradition and the fathers, as Dr. Salmon says it does, it is an 
explanation of both ; and if there be anything peculiar in 
Newman’s theory, be is himself responsible as his own words 
testify. If Dr. Salmon had given as much of his time and 
talent to the earnest search for truth, as he devoted to 
the propagation of calumnies on the Catholic Church, it 
would have been all the better for himself, and for his 
students also. 

Before passing from the subject of Development , it may be 
well to consider the value of any interesting discovery which 
Dr. Salmon has made in the history of the theory. He 
says : 1 But more than a century before Dr. Newman’s time 
the theory of Development had played its part in the Bomau 
Catholic controversy, only then it was the Protestant 
combatant who brought that theory forward, and the Roman 
Catholic who repudiated it ’ (page 35). The allusion is to the 
controversy between Bossuet and the Calvinist Jurieu, and 
Dr. Salmon goes on to say : — 

The theses of his [Bossuet’s] book called the History of the 
Variations of the Protestant Churches , was that the doctrine of 
the true Church is always the same, whereas Protestants are at 
variance with each other, and with themselves. Bousset was 
replied to by a Calvinist minister named Jurieu. The line Jurieu 
took was to dispute the assertion that the doctrine of the true is 
always the same. He maintained the doctrine of development in 
its full extent, asserting that the truth of God was only known by 
instalments (par parcelles), that the theology of the fathers was 
imperfect and fluctuating, and that Christian theology has been 
constantly going on towards perfection. He illustrated his theory 
by examples of important doctrines, concerning which he alleged 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



the teaching of the early Church to have been defective or 
uncertain, of which it is enough here to quote that he declared that 
the mystery of the Trinity, though of the last importance, and 
essential to Christianity, remained as every one knows undeveloped 
(infannc) down to thejfira/ Council of Nice, and evon down to that 
of Constantinople. (Pages 35, 36.) 

And Dr. Salmon adds that even ‘ the Jesuit Petavius 
had . . . made very similar assertions concerning the 
immaturity of the teaching of the early fathers* (page 86). 
And his conclusion is this : * It seems then a very serious 
matter if the leading authorities of the Roman Church have 
now to own that in the main point at issue between Bossuet 
and Jurieu, the Calvinist minister was in the right, and 
their own champion in the wrong ’ (page 37). According to 
Dr. Salmon then Bossuet repudiated the development of 
doctrine in the sense in which Catholics now admit it, while 
Jurieu maintained in precisely the same sense as we now 
hold it ; and moreover the learned Jesuit Petavius agreed 
with Jurieu. Neither of these statements has the slightest 
foundation in fact. Dr. Salmon says he has taken from 
Bossuet’s Premier Avertissement aux Protestans. They are 
not taken from the Premier Avertissement for they are not 
contained in it ; on the contrary it supplies conclusive 
evidence to contradict each of these statements. Bossuet 
addressing Protestants in the third section of the Avertisse- 
ment says : ‘ What your minister regards as intolerable is, 
that I should dare to state that the faith does not change 
in the true Church, and that the truth coming from God 
was perfect from the first.’ Now Bossuet immediately 
explains what he means by this statement, for he immedi- 
ately quotes Sc. Vincent of Lerins in confirmation of it : — 

The Church of Christ, the faithful guardian of the truths 
committed to her care, never changes anything in them ; she 
takes nothing away ; she adds nothing ; she rejects nothing 
necessary ; she takes up nothing superfluous. Her whole care is 
to explain those truths that were originally committed to her, to 
confirm those that have been sufficiently explained, to guard 
those that have been defined and confirmed, and to transmit to 
posterity in writings those things that she received from the 
fathers Dy tradition. (Sec. 4 ) 

And having thus defined his own teaching Bossuet 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



lays down, in Sec. 5, that his proposition which the 
minister thought so strange is exactly that of St. Vincent 
of Lerins, and he adds : 4 But it is not sufficient for 
that father to establish the same truth which I have laid 
down as a foundation, but he even establishes it by the 
very same principle, namely, that the truth coming from 
God was perfect from the first * (Sec. 5) ; and be then 
quotes St. Vincent as saying : — 

I cannot sufficiently express my surprise, how men are so 
proud, so blind, so impious, so carried away by error, that not 
content with the rule of faith, once given to the faithful, and 
handed down from those who went before, they are every day 
looking for novelties, and are daily seeking to add, to change, or 
take away something from religion, as if it was not a heavenly 
truth, which once revealed is sufficient, but only a human institu- 
tion, which can only come to perfection by continual changing, or 
more correctly, by every day finding out some defect (Sec. 5.) 

And still quoting St. Vincent, Bossuet adds : — 

But in order the better to understand the sentiments of 
St. Vincent we must look at his proof. And the proof of the 
unchangeable character of the doctrine is St. Paul's exhortation 
to Timothy : * Oh, Timothy, guard the deposit * ; that is, as he 
explains it, not what you have yourself discovered, but what has 
been entrusted to 3 ou, what you have received from others, and 
not at all what you might have invented yourself. (Sec. 5.) 

From Bossuet’s own words, therefore, in the Avertis&c- 
ment f relied on by Dr. Salmon, it is perfectly clear that his 
teaching as to the unchangeable character of Catholic faith, 
and the explanation of doctrines under the control and 
guidance of the teaching Church, is the same as Catholic 
theologians have always held and taught. It is the teaching 
given by St. Paul to his disciple Timothy, inculcated by 
St. Vincent in the beautiful language already quoted from 
him, and reiterated in St. Vincent’s own words in the acts 
of theVatican Council. Dr. Salmon professes to have read 
the Avcrtissement, and he gives in his own book the acts of 
the Vatican, and he does not see how they agree in this 

All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye. 

The character given of Jurieu by his co-religioniBt and 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



contemporary Bayle, would not lead one to attach much 
importance to his views on theology, or indeed on any other 
subject. His views on Development Dr. Salmon professes to 
have taken from Bossuet’s Avertissement, and Dr. Salmon's 
contention is, that our theory now was Jurieu's theory then, 
and that it seems a very serious matter if ‘the leading 
authorities in the Boman Church have now to own .... 
that the Calvinist minister was in the right, and their own 
champion in the wrong ’ (page 37). Now, when we refer to 
the Avertissement, from which Dr. Salmon has taken his 
information, we find Jurieu’s theory of Development de- 
scribed by Bossuet as follows : ‘ It may be alleged that the 
changes were only verbal in the terms, and that in reality 
the Church’s belief was always the same. But this is 
not true ... for the way in which we have seen that 
the ancients speak of the generation of the Son of God, and 
of His inequality with the Father, convey impressions very 
false and very different from ours.’ (Sec. 6.) Again from 
Sec- 8 we leam that according to Jurieu the early Christians 
did not believe that the Person of the Son of God was 
eternal, and consequently did not believe that the Trinity 
was from eternity. Again in Sec. 9 we are told that accord- 
ing to Jurieu the early Christians did not believe that God 
was immutable. In Sec. 10 we are told that according to 
Jurieu the first Christians believed that the Divine Persons 
were not equal, and from Sec. 13 we learn that, according 
to Jurieu, the early Christians did not know the mystery 
of the Incarnation. It is needless to quote any further the 
blasphemies of this man. It is quite unnecessary to inquire 
whether Jurieu really held these blasphemies, though Bossuet 
convicts him out of his own mouth. Such at all events 
is the theory of Jurieu from the very text which Dr. Salmon 
professes to have quoted. According to Jurieu the early 
Christians were not only ignorant of true doctrines, but 
they held for at least three centuries doctrines that were 
blasphemous, and subversive of all true faith, and that from 
this mass of blasphemous error truth gradually {par 
pareeUet) came forth. And with this text and proof before 
him Dr. Salmon does not hesitate to tell his students that 
von. x. b 

Digitized by 



Jurieu’s position then was the Catholic position now, and 
that ‘ in Newman’s Essay on Development eve^thing that 
had been said by Jurieu and by Petavius ... is said again, 

and said more strongly ’ (page 37). 

And what has Petavius done that he should be classed 
with such a person as Jurieu? Surely his character as one 
of the greatest scholars of his age, and one of the leading 
theologians of the great Jesuit Order, should have made even 
Dr. Salmon hesitate to link him with such an ignorant 
fanatic. But the most extraordinary feature of the charge 
against Petavius is that the very text on which the charge is 
grounded proves it to be utterly and entirely false— is simply 
a formal refutation of the charge. Again Dr. Salmon takes 
his information from the Avertissement, and the only refer- 
ence to Petavius is in Sec. 28, in which Bossuet undertakes 
to prove ‘that the passage of Petavius quoted by Jurieu, 
states the direct contradiction of what that minister attributes 
to him.’ And Bossuet proves his assertion conclusively from 
the text of Petavius. There was question only of the doctrine 
of the Trinity, and Bossuet shows that according to Petavius 
all the fathers agree as to the mystery, though they some- 
times differ as to the manner of explaining certain things 
connected with it In the less important matters some few, 
very few, have erred. Some have spoken inaccurately but 
the great multitude of the fathers have been as accurate 
in their language as they were orthodox in their faith. This, 
aborting to Bossuet, is the teaching of Petavius, and anyone 
who consults Petavius himself will find Bossuet’s statement 
quite correct. The text will be found in the preface to the 
second volume of Petavius’ works, c. 1, n. 10 and 12 of 
Zachary’s edition, Venice, 1757. Now, though Petavius 
directly contradicts Jurieu, Dr. Salmon declares that they 
mtm, and by some clever mental process he finds that 
Newman agrees with both. In proof of this he says that 
‘Newman begins by owning the unserviceableness of 
St. Vincent’s maxim * quod semper ” ’ (page 37). Dr. Salmon 
himself has made the same admission at page 270. He adds 
that Newman ‘confesses that is impossible by means of 
this maxim (unless indeed a very forced interpretation be 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



put on it) to establish the articles of Pope Pius’ creed . . . 
impossible to show that these articles are any part of the 
faith of the Early Church ’ (page 37). Dr. Salmon is here fully 
availing himself of his 4 advantage in addressing an audience 
all one way of thinking/ and thus he is lead again to 
attiibute to Newman a statement that has no foundation in 
his text. Newman says nothing of what is attributed to him 
here. In speaking of St. Vincent’s maxim, Newman says 
that an unfair interpretation is put on the maxim by 
Protestants in order to make a case against the Catholic 
Church, and that for this unfair interpretation Protestants 
themselves suffer. 

It admits [Newman says] of being interpreted in one of two 
ways : if it be narrowed for the purpose of disproving the 
Catholicity of the creed of Pope Pius, it becomes also an objection 
to the Athanasian ; and if it be relaxed to admit the dootrines 
retained by the English Church, it no longer excludes certain 
doctrines of Borne which that Church denies. It cannot at once 
condemn St. Thomas and St. Bernard, and defend St. Athanasius 
and St. Gregory Nazianzen . 1 

And Newman adds 

Let it not be for a moment supposed that I impugn the orthodoxy 
of the early divines, or the cogency of their testimony among fair 
inquirers : but I am trying them by that unfair interpretation of 
Vincentius which is necessary in order to make him available 
against the Church of Rome.* 

This is Cardinal Newman’s real view as to the rule of 
St. Vincent of Lerins, very different from the view attributed 
to him by Dr. Salmon in his anxiety to make a case against 
the Catholic Church. And it is for this same object that 
Bossuet and Jurieu and Petavius are quoted by Dr. Salmon, 
to make them available against the Catholic Church. The 
attempt, however, is a miserable failure. In fact, no one 
can read the Avertissement , and read Dr. Salmon’s para- 
phrase of it, without feeling— well, that the Doctor is a 
very imaginative person, that he has a rather clever way of 
manipulating his authorities, that he is a sort of mesmeriser 
who can make his media say precisely what he wants them 

1 Euay on Development, p. 9. a p. 15, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



to say. His aim is, be says, not victory, but truth : but it 
must be admitted that he has a somewhat peculiar way of 
telling the truth. His manner of carrying on the ‘Con- 
troversy with Rome ’ is in strict accordance with the time 
honoured traditions of Trinity College ; and the College is, 
indeed, fortunate in securing the services of a regius 
professor who has such a profound knowledge of theology, 
and such a scrupulous regard for truth. 

J. Murphy. 

(7b 1 0 continued ] 



T HE facts contained in the present paper are similar to 
those already submitted to the reader in articles which 
appeared in the I. E. Record of May and June, 1899. 
They throw a still clearer light on the. state of religion in 
Ireland for the greater part of the seventeenth century, 
serving, at the same time, to illustrate certain general 
assertions to which I was obliged to confine myself 
in my narrative of the Irish Discalced Carmelites. A. 
series of MS. notes on various Chapters General of the 
Order, 1 written principally in Italian, furnish these facts, 
most of which seem to have been collected by one of the 
Irish fathers before the year 1650, with a view, no doubt, to 
the compilation of a bistory of ‘ St. Patrick's Province.' If 
we had nothing else to be grateful for, the notes now at 
our disposal add a number of new names to the sadly in- 
complete obituary of those Irish missionaries, whose further 
trials are, however, of quite an absorbing interest. 

The name of Father Paul-Simon has frequently occurred 
in connection with the establishment of the Teresian 
Carmelites in Ireland. We are told that his great solici- 
tude for the success of the Irish mission was due to the 

1 For the transcript of which I am indebted to Father Alphonsus, O.D.C., 
Ypres, and to the Rev. Benedict Zimmerman, O.D C., London. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 


spirit of fervent zeal which he had noticed among the young 
students from this country preparing for the priesthood in 
the college of the Order at Louvain. One of the most pro- 
mising of these future missioners was Brother Matthew of 
the Immaculate Conception, a native of the County Galway, 
the son of Thomas Challoner and Catherine Ward. He had 
been professed at Brussels on the 10th of December, 1617 ; 
but just as he was giving evidence of very great talents it 
was discovered that he suffered from an infirmity which 
would prevent his ordination eventually. And the grievous 
trial of his life, borne with exemplary sweetness and 
patience, was to see his eager young companions leave for 
their native land, where they should be daily exposed to 
perils, privations, and hardships in the sacred cause of truth. 
Brother Matthew died at Louvain on the 17th of December, 
1657, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, too humble, of 
course, so much as to dream that after several centuries 
Ireland would proudly number him among her zealous 

The need of financial resources was the principal hindrance 
to the immediate carrying out of the plan which Father 
Paul-Simon had proposed to the Superiors-General with 
regard to the Irish mission. But when he explained all 
that he had heard in Belgium concerning the charity and 
devotedness of the faithful of Ireland, and, above all, their 
pitiful longing for the consolations of religion, the other 
difficulties did not appear insurmountable ; and special 
mention is made of the transport of joy with which Fathers 
Edward of the Kings, and Paul of St. Ubaldus, received 
the glad tidings of their having been chosen for those arduous 
duties likely to entail the sacrifice of their very lives. It 
was towards the end of the month of September, in the year 
1625, that they reached the city of Dublin. Little had either 
of them thought, when visiting the various Carmelite 
monasteries which afforded them welcome hospitality on 
their tedious journey through Flauders, that a time would 
come when these houses should no longer exist, while the 
mission which they themselves were about to inaugurate at 
the risk of their lives should have developed into a most 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



flourishing Province of their Order. They may have seen and 
admired the picture of ‘ St. Teresa in Prayer,’ which Rubens 
had recently painted for one of the Oarmelite churches, and 
which, as it now hangs in the Art Gallery at Antwerp, cannot 
fail to remind those interested in the history of ‘ Carmel in 
Ireland ’ of what the Irish Teresian friars of the seventeenth 
century were willing to do and to suffer for the Faith. 

We find that a Decree of the General Chapter of 
1626 provided for the foundation of a college on the Con- 
tinent for the education of both Irish and English subjects. 
This house was to have been under the immediate control 
of the Father General himself. However, the extraordinary 
success already attending the efforts of Fathers Edward and 
Paul, showed that so far as Ireland was concerned, the 
project might be deferred pending further developments. For 
in this same Chapter it transpired that the two religious had 
actually opened a little friary and chapel in Dublin, and now 
sought permission to enlarge the buildings, having received 
every encouragement from the Catholic citizens, and not 
being yet molested in any way by the authorities. Not alone 
were the fathers of the Chapter delighted to grant all the 
requests which had been made ; but decided, moreover, on 
sending Father Columbanus of the Blessed Sacrament, 
Father Patrick of St. James, and Brother Fortunatus of 
St. Anne— a student who had completed his theological 
course, but was yet too young for ordination— to assist in 
the good work thus happily begun. Difficult as it was to 
communicate with Rome in those days, the Irish fathers 
kept their Superiors-General well informed of the progress 
of the mission ; and later on a formal account of the mode 
of life • led by that first little community of Discalced 
Carmelites in Ireland was forwarded for the approval and 
blessing of those who had the welfare of their brethren in 
this remote country very dearly at heart. Part of this 
edifying document is still extant ; and somewhat lengthy 
allusion to it will well repay the trouble. 

The chief object of Fathers Edward and Paul in coming 
to Dublin was merely to avail themselves of the toleration 
supposed to be enjoyed by Catholics under King Charles I. ; 

Digitized by LjOOQle 


their most sanguine hope being to rent a small house in 
the city where they could say Mass and recite the Divine 
Office before engaging in their missionary duties among the 
people. But no sooner had their arrival become known, than 
the faithful took it for granted that they might assist at the 
Holy Sacrifice in the room used by the friars as an oratory. 
This led m a very short time to the necessity of making 
that petition to the General Chapter. Having celebrated 
the Sacred Mysteries each morning, and fulfilled their 
obligations in choir, the fathers attended for hours at 
a time in the confessional, and frequently preached during 
the week as well as on Sundays and festivals; in fact, when- 
ever a favourable opportunity offered to instruct and edify 
the people. Both Father Edward and Father Paul seem to 
have possessed a special talent for moving their audience to 
remorse and fervour, the latter priest often selecting as the 
subject of his discourse the Truths of Religion, which he 
explained briefly and convincingly, and in such wise that 
the faithful might see for themselves how easily the absurd 
errors of that age could be forcibly refuted. Moreover, a 
pious meditation — usually from the works of Lewis De 
Granada' — was read for a number of people who visited 
the little church every day at noon, desiring to spend some 
time in mental prayer before the Blessed Sacrament. So 
much profit was derived from this excellent practice that 
the fathers are said to have positively worked wonders in 
the spiritual way, keeping always to the solid principles of 
mysticism laid down in the writings of St. Teresa, St. John 
of the Cross, and the Venerable John of Jesus Mary. As 
for their own advancement in virtue, the religious observed 
the rigid rule of their Order just as fervently as if they had 
no missionary labours on hand, knowing this to be the most 
efficacious means of arriving ultimately at perfection. 

It was not long until that humble retreat became a 
favourite place of devotion in Dablin, being known among 
the Catholics as the Chapel of ‘ Our Lady, the Vanquisher 
of all Heresy,’ because of the great zeal of the friars in 

1 Whose admirable treatise, entitled A Memorial of a Chrutian Life, was 
edited, in English, by Father L’Estrange, O.D.C., early in the last century. 

Digitized by 



proving the brown scapular to be a special shield given to 
protect the clients of the Blessed Virgin in time of danger. 
We are told that many pious young men — sons of some of the 
most influential citizens — applied for admission to the austere 
Order of Carmel ; but just then there was very great diffi- 
culty experienced in sending postulants abroad for their 
noviceship and education. Still, in some instances, Fathers 
Edward and Paul did assume the risk even as early as the 
year 1626 ; and in the course of time two of those fervent 
aspirants became most successful missionaries in Ireland, 
and were well known as Father Angelus of St. Teresa 
and Father Joseph of St. Mary. 

The fame of this poor friary in Cook-street at length 
attracted the notice of many of the leading Protestants of 
Dublin, who, visiting the place through curiosity, stood 
amazed at what they saw, and were deeply moved by the 
mortified lives of the religious, evidence of which appeared 
on every side. Among their more distinguished visitors, the 
friars received the Viceroy himself, who was equally im- 
pressed by the spirit and bearing of Fathers Edward and 
Paul ; and on another occasion his secretary — Calisorth (?) 
— called unexpectedly when passing ne^r the monastery, 
and asked to be allowed to accompany the religious to the 
refectory. Of course the favour was most willingly granted, 
and so profoundly edified and touched was that gentleman 
by his strange experience — the reading happened to be on 
the General Judgment — that he was unable to speak when 
leaving. He generously contributed to the fund for improve- 
ments in the church and friary, and sometime afterwards he 
sent a present of fine fish to the fathers in acknowledgment, 
he said, of their goodness to him on the day he had the 
privilege of being their guest. The Castle officials were not 
always so kindly disposed to the Carmelites of Cook-street, 
as I have elsewhere explained. 1 

In the same narrative mention is made of the fervour of 
the novices received into the Order at Dublin. Not alone 
were they most diligent in the Regular Observance, and 
devoted to prayer and mortification — exercising themselves 

1 Carmel in Ireland , p. 40. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 


unceasingly in the presence of God and holy Obedience — 
but, from the very beginning, were eagerly looking forward 
to the time when in the discharge of their missionary duties 
they might happily be called upon (as some of them actually 
were) to lay down their lives for the Faith. The first of 
all — as we learn from another source — to take the brown 
habit of Carmel in his native land was a young man known 
in religion as Brother James of the Blessed Sacrament. 
He was member of an ancient and noble Irish family, his 
parents being exemplary Catholics and extremely careful in 
the education of their son, whose after-career so fully repaid 
their anxious love. Owing to the great inconvenience and 
risk of sending postulants abroad, the Discalced Carmelites 
of Dublin obtained permission to profess their own subjects 
as early as the year 1627, the date of Brother James’s 
canonical reception. He was then in the twenty-first year 
of his age. During his noviceship he gave much edification 
to the other members of the community, by this time quite 
numerous ; and, as a student, soon proved that he was 
gifted with extraordinary abilities. He became one of the 
professors in the Irish Province almost immediately after 
his ordination, and taught with great success until he was 
driven into exile by the Puritans. But his renown had 
already extended to the Continent; and he was at once 
appointed to teach both Philosophy and Theology in the 
college of the Order at Malta. Later on he was called to 
Kome to train the students at S. Maria della Yittoria in the 
art of Polemics : a position deemed of gravest responsibility 
at the time ; but for which Father James of the Blessed 
Sacrament was well qualified in every respect. He died 
there in the year 1648 to the great regret of the entire 
Order; more especially, of course, to the sorrow of his 
brethren on the Irish mission. 

From the Acts of the General Chapter, held during the 
month *of May, 1629, we learn that the newly-elected 
Superior-General, Father Ferdinand of St, Mary, was 
deeply interested in all that concerned those under his 
jurisdiction in Ireland. Their zeal had produced much fruit 
by this time, not only among the faithful of Dublin, but 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 


throughout the entire country. The various requests made 
to this Chapter by the Irish fathers were readily granted ; 
amongst other things, Father Edward of the Kings was 
most anxious for the foundation of another house, wherein 
those who had been recently professed could be educated 
for the priesthood. There were now twenty-five members 
in the community at Dublin, and all the exercises of the 
strict Observance — such as rising at midnight for the 
recital of the Divine Office — were carried out most fervently, 
the religious not availing themselves of the usual missionary 
dispensations. Particular mention was made of their zeal 
in the discharge of the duties of the sacred ministry, the 
younger friars eagerly waiting to emulate the edifying 
example of Fathers Edward and Paul. But as very few of 
them were yet priests, and since the labours of the mission 
continued to increase, when the General Chapter next 
assembled (A.D., 1632), it was decided to send the Irish 
fathers some further assistance ‘ to combat error ’ — par- 
ticularly as Father Edward of the Kings bad in the 
meantime died — by placing at their disposal the services of 
a young religious who had just completed his studies in 
Belgium. This was Father Malachy of Jesus, whose career 
was very eventful and of great profit to the Irish Church. 

Father Malachy was a native of the county Louth, and 
was only in the forty-first year of his age at the time of his 
death, a.d., 1641. He had been educated in Flanders, 
because of the persecution against Catholics in Ireland, 
and in 1622 became a Discalced Carmelite. Pious and 
studious, he gave the utmost satisfaction both as a novice 
and as a collegian, and on coming to Dublin he made 
many converts, one of whom was the Protestant Dean of 
Kildare — the then President of Trinity College — a man of 
very great personal influence in Ireland. Naturally this 
excited the anger and jealousy of the heretics ; so that we 
are not surprised on finding Father Malachy ’s name 
in a list of Irish exiles, about which we shall soon have 
occasion to speak. Banishment proved martyrdom in his 
case, so terrible were the hardships the out-lawed friars had 
to endure before they were driven from the country. 

Digitized by ooQle 


A touching incident occurred at the General Chapter of 
the year 1635, which gives a still farther insight into some 
of the minor trials our missionaries were called upon to bear. 
Two fathers “from Ireland had undertaken the long and 
dangerous journey to Borne in order to assist at that Chapter 
as representatives of their province. They were Father 
Antony of St. Mary, the Vicar-Provincial, and Father 
Onufrius of St Angelas, 1 who acted as Procurator of the 
mission. Their presence there implied not only the desire 
to forward the interests of the Irish communities in every 
way, but chiefly to testify to their filial obedience to the 
Superior-General of the Order. Father Onuphrius, who 
was bom at St. Omer in the year 1600, had held responsible 
positions in various monasteries in Belgium and France, and 
had been intimately connected with the Irish mission for a 
very long time, seemed most fitted for the duty imposed 
upon him, as he bad recently concluded the canonical visita- 
tion in Ireland. However, on presenting their ‘ letters 
patent ’ to the Chapter (a formality most strictly insisted 
upon by the Constitutions), it was found that the other Irish 
fathers had omitted to sign these important documents 
for their representatives ; and, consequently, neither Father 
Antony nor Father Onuphrius could assist at the various 
sessions, for the Superi ors-General were unable to remedy 
the omission, although all knew that it happened through 
inadvertence. Even an effort was made to admit at least 
one of the fathers in virtue of a Decree of the Sacred Congre- 
gation (Propaganda), a.d. 1663, which required one or two 
religious from each mission to attend the General Chapter 
every six years. But both Father Antony and Father 
Onuphrius earnestly requested that the affairs of the entire 
Order should not be delayed on their account ; and it is 
pleasant to write of the result : the several petitions of the 
Irish fathers were granted unanimously, and special reference 
was made to the edifying submission and humility of their 
Vicar-Provincial and of the Procurator of the mission. The 
foundation of the new friaries was formally confirmed, 

1 Intended for 4 Father Onuphriua of St. James,’ evidently. 

Digitized by 



Father Onuphrius himself, who appears to have been 
affiliated to the Irish Province for the time being, was 
elected first prior of the Discalced Carmelite Monastery at 
Athboy. Father Fortunatus of St. Anne was appointed 
superior of the house recently established at Kinsale, pending 
the election of a prior and sub-prior (as the Constitutions 
prescribe) after the community had been duly formed there. 
All that had been already done regarding the novitiate in 
Dublin and the college at Drogheda was likewise cordially 
approved of by this Chapter ; and as two young priests — 
Father Cyril of St. Joseph, and Father Christopher of 
St. Matthew — had lately finished their studies in Borne, it 
was thought advisable to send them back to Ireland imme- 
diately, where they would be of so much assistance, seeing 
how fervent their lives had been during their college course. 
The Irish fathers were deeply grateful for this and for the 
many other favours which they had received ; but, above 
all, for the paternal interest in the welfare of their Province 
thus manifested by their Superiors-General. 

Father Onuphriu3 again represented the Teresian Carmel- 
ites of Ireland in the General Chapter of 1638. Marvellous 
as had been the progress of the mission during the past 
twelve years, we learn that the religious lived in a state of 
constant suspense, so uncertain was the toleration shown 
to Irish Kornan Catholics. Hence, although the petition 
forwarded by the Teresian Carmelites, for the canonical 
erection of the monasteries of their Order in this country 
into a province, was readily granted, the Chapter suggested 
that the Decree should not be executed until such time as the 
attitude of the King’s enemies had become less threatening ; 
their power at that particular time being very great. Still 
the Irish fathers, being allowed to act on their own discretion 
in this matter, did not hesitate to elect their first Provincial 
and his assistants, now formally placing the new province 
under the patronage of St. Patrick. As the English mission 
was then in urgent need of priests, the General— Father Philip 
of St. James — decided on sending Father John Baptist of 
Carmel (anEnglishman who had become a Discalced Carmelite 
in Ireland) to administer to the spiritual wants of the faithful 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 


there ; and from the year 1639, the Catholics of Warwick- 
shire and Somerset, especially, derived great profit from the 
zeal of this religions, who in the coarse of his missionary 
career was called npon to suffer much in the cause of truth. 

The next General Chapter of the Order was held in the 
year 1641, at which the recently elected Irish Provincial, 
Father Patrick of St. James, and his companions, Fathers 
Malachy of Jesus and Simon of St. Teresa, assisted as repre- 
sentatives of the Teresian Carmelites of Ireland. The Decree 
relating to the establishment of St. Patrick’s Province was 
now confirmed ; nevertheless, Father Patrick was anxious 
that there should be a novitiate for Irish subjects opened 
somewhere on the Continent ; so that thenceforth the young 
religious might be professed in security. Such was the 
existing state of affairs in Ireland that a persecution seemed 
daily imminent ; and for this reason the matter before the 
Chapter was considered all the more pressing; although 
from the very beginning, as we have seen, the Irish 
Fathers themselves felt assured that, sooner or later, the 
project so frequently proposed would admit of no alternative. 
It was suggested that the Carmelite monastery at La Bochelle 
would suit this purpose admirably, in the almost certain 
event of its being restored to the Order by King Louis XIII. 
— to the joy of that monarch’s Catholic subjects, if to the 
indignation of the Huguenot rebels. Father Patrick’s request 
was ably supported by the Superior of the newly-established 
Province of Aquitaine, who said that deliberation could 
hardly be necessary on what concerned so intimately the 
salvation of many souls ; and which must needs redound 
greatly to the glory of God. It was rather a privilege for 
them to have an opportunity of co-operating in any way 
in a work so holy, for which their brethren in Ireland were 
prepared not only to strive zealously, but to lay down 
their lives. The petition was granted most willingly; 
but when the Irish fathers should secure possession of that 
monastery at La Bochelle, it was to serve both as a Novitiate 
and a House of Studies, with a community not exceeding 
forty professed religious. 

The fathers assembled in the General Chapter of 1641 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



were, moreover, much edified by the success of the members 
of the Order in Ireland, notwithstanding the many diffi- 
culties and trials attending their missionary labours. A 
thrilling narrative of what be himself had witnessed while at 
Ardee was famished by Father Columbanus of St. Michael. 
He' had been sent thither, when only a deacon, to accompany 
Father Victor of St. Michael, whom Father Simon, the 
Vicar-Provincial, had' directed to prepare the rains of the 
old Carmelite monastery there for & community of the 
Teresian faiars, (ad. 1639). Father Victor was still a 
student in Borne in the year 1634 ; and to Father Colambanns 
we are indebted for some of the most important documents 
relating to the history of St. Patrick’s Province which, at 
present, are happily extant. Neither was the knowledge of 
the success of the Irish Discalced Carmelites at this epoch 
confined to the Order solely. We are informed that the 
Sacred Congregation signified approval of their zeal by 
granting them various favours, particularly the privilege of 
founding monasteries even when the ordinances of the 
Apostolic Constitutions, with regard to the number of 
religious in each community, could not be observed. This 
important concession was sanctioned by Pope Urban VIII. 
on the* 10th of June, 1641. On the 18th of May that 
same year another Decree, in favour of the Irish Discalced 
Carmelites, and bearing the signature of Cardinal Baberini, 
was forwarded to the Archbishop of Armagh, to whose most 
special consideration these religious were commended lest 
they should be interfered with in any way in the exercise 
of the Bacred ministry. It appears that the Teresian friars 
met with much trouble the preceding year (a.d. 1640) while 
establishing their claim to certain monasteries, a matter to 
which we shall have occasion to allude again in the course 
of our narrative. However, their own trials could not 
hinder them, apparently, offering a practical proof of 
sympathy to their brethren then struggling on the TCngliah 
mission. Father Joseph of 8t. Mary (Rev. Nicholas Rider), 
born in Dublin, of English parents, about the year 1600, 

1 Written ‘ Michael of St. Victor * in another document. 

Digitized by 


was one of the most promising members of the Irish 
Province; still, from a reference made in the General 
Chapter of 1641, we find that Father Patrick of St. James 
gladly sent him over to the aid of the Discalced Carmelites 
in England, an action highly approved of by the Superiors- 
General, who could well appreciate the generosity of the 
sacrifice which the Irish religious had thus made. The 
hopes placed in Father Joseph’s spirit of missionary zeal 
were more than realized before the close of his long and 
eventful career in the year 1682. Besides the fervent dis- 
charge of the duties of the sacred ministry, he taught a 
number of young men the classics, and prepared them to 
study for the priesthood on the Continent, where most of 
them were afterwards ordained. He himself accompanied 
George Halley to the novitiate in Dublin, waiting to see 
him clothed in the brown habit and receive what proved for 
him the auspicious name of Augelus in religion, and which 
is now inoluded in the list of our Irish confessors of the 


A General Chapter of the Discalced Carmelites was 
held in Borne in the year 1644. Father John of the Mother 
of God — the Irish Provincial, mentioned as a most dis- 
tinguished missionary — was present, and had a sad tale to 
tell of the sufferings and privations of the members of the 
Order in Ireland. The fathers of the Chapter might have 
expected some such narrative, for Father Innocent of 
St. Vincent, appointed to make the general visitation there, 
and also in England, in 1642, had already furnished evidence 
of the appalling condition of the Catholics in both countries, 
and of the trials of the priests who, at every hazard, perse- 
vered in affording them the strengthening consolations of 
their Faith. It was only in the residence of the Spanish 
ambassador that Father Innocent himself could meet the 
Teresian friars of the English mission, few in number, but 
full of zeal. On that occasion he believed the duty of his 
office to consist in merely encouraging the religious and 
exhorting them to still greater constancy, which he clearly 
foresaw must soon needs be heroic to meet more cruel 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



phases of the persecution already perhaps at band. The 
Roman Catholics were everywhere detested by the heretics, 
who regarded them as traitors, and treated them accord- 
ingly. He was told that the most trying grievance which 
the faithful had to complain of regarded the many serious 
obstacles in the way of educating their children. As for 
the clergy they administered the Sacraments in constant 
danger of their lives ; and could only venture forth from 
their hiding-places during the night, always fearful lest they 
should be discovered in the houses of the Catholics, to 
receive them being a felony in the eyes of the law. Still, 
Father Innocent assures us, that he found the persecution 
raging even more fiercely in Ireland, where several of the 
Discalced Carmelites had been recently slain ; others were 
then in prison ; many had been forced into exile ; the 
remainder being dispersed throughout the country — to the 
very great profit of the suffering people, who were wonder- 
fully encouraged by seeing those confessors fearlessly waging 
an unremitting war against the errors of their persecutors. 
In fact by the year 1643 all the monasteries of the Irish 
Province had been seized and plundered by the heretics; 
however, a few friaries were subsequently recovered by the 
religious, as already explained. 

At the request of the Chapter, Father John of the 
Mother of God briefly stated the facts of the martyrdom of 
the three Teresian friars whom the Puritans had put to 
death ; and he promised to forward to Rome, as soon as 
possible, an official document containing such formal 
evidence as might be used in the eventual beatification of 
these confessors. There is no doubt that that document 
was actually sent from Ireland ; but, unhappily, it seems to 
have been either lost on the way, or to have fallen into the 
hands of those who did not then realise its importance. 
Were it now forthcoming, much might be done towards 
having the names of Father Thomas Aquinas, Brother 
Angelus, and Brother Peter raised to our Altars. The recent 
beatification of two Discalced Carmelites who were martyred 
in Sumatra about the same time — the Blessed Denis of the 
Nativity and Redemptus of the Cross — gives us reason to 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 


hope that the cause of their Irish brethren will yet reach a 
like happy issue. And it is reassuring to find that we are 
referred for the authentic account of the martyrdom of the 
three Irish confessors to the narrative of Father Philip of the 
Blessed Trinity ; a contemporary writer of great authority, 
to whom we are also indebted for the record of the suffer- 
ings and death of the Blessed Denis of the Nativity and 
Bedemptus of the Cross. 

Father John of the Mother of God was himself a victim 
of the Puritan fury, as we learn from a list of the names of 
Discalced Carmelites banished from Ireland in the year 
1641. His companions in exile were Fathers Columbanus of 
St. Michael, Paul of St. Ubaldus, Fortunatus of St. Anne, 
and Paul Simon of Jesus Mary. They found a refuge and 
hospitality in the various monasteries of the Order in 
Flanders. But Fathers Angelus-Joseph, Laurence of 
St. Thomas, John of the Cross, Edward of the Kings (a 
namesake of the first President of the Irish mission) ; a 
choir-brother whose name is not mentioned, a lay brother, 
called Stephen, and another priest named Angelos, sought 
an asylum in France. Fathers Laurence, Nicholas, and 
Cyril escaped to Lombardy; Fathers Thomas of Jesus, 
Patrick of St. James, Bernard, and Malachy to Malta ; 
Father Patrick to Cologne, and Father Angelus of the Holy 
Ghost to Piedmont. Some of these religious — Father 
Malachy of Jesus, among others— as we have seen, did not 
long survive the hardships they had been exposed to pre- 
ceding their exile ; but most of them succeeded in returning 
to Ireland very soon. It is easy to understand what dangers 
must have been encountered by Father John of the Mother 
of God, in order to be present at the General Chapter of 
1644. He was shipwrecked on his way home, and lost 
whatever he had with him, amongst other things, the 
Honoraria for a number of Masses which were to have been 
said by the Teresian missionaries in Ireland. But when the 
matter had been represented to the Sacred Congregation, 
it was declared that all obligations should be fulfilled 
by certain anniversary Masses, as this was the only 
means in the power of the religious — owing to their own 
VOL. x. s 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



circumstances and to the state of the country— to satisfy so 
urgent a claim of justice. 

It is a remarkable coincidence that the very next 
reference to the Irish Province in the notes before us con- 
cerns the great interest taken by the Archbishop of Fermo— 
Monsignor John Baptist Rinuccini — in the affairs of the 
Discalced Carmelites of Ireland during his memorable 
mission 4o this country as Papal Nuncio. Father John of 
the Mother of God was the religious represented by certain 
writers as being bitterly hostile to RinuCcini at the very 
time that prelate was exercising his influence in Rome in 
favour of the members of St. Patrick’s Province. And this, 
we are happy to say, confirms the opinion expressed by 
ourselves when dealing with the question at length in 
another place. 1 In an important document, written in 
Kilkenny on the 16th of January, 1646, the Nuncio confirms 
the Teresian community at Loughrea in possession of the 
old Carmelite abbey there, Father James Brisbane,* one of 
the Definitors Provincial, being their representative. The 
zeal of those religious is spoken of in terms of highest praise, 
the Catholic population of Loughrea — then about fourteen 
hundred as the Nuncio had been informed — deriving the 
greatest spiritual benefit from the fervour of the friars in the 
exercise of the sacred ministry. Various cogent reasons are 
given for the cause having been decided on behalf of the 
Teresian Carmelites ; and this had been done in virtue of 
Rinuccini’s authority as Papal Nuncio. But for the further 
reassurance of those religious he secured the Pope’s own 
sanction to the Decree which he himself had issued in their 

In order to avoid capture by the heretics, the Irish 
Provincial and the father deputed to assist with him at the 
General Chapter of the year 1647 took different routes to 
Rome. The Provincial succeeded in arriving in time for 
the sessions, but the Chapter was already over when the 
other Irish father reached the Eternal City. 

1 Carmel in Ireland , pp. 6 4, 60, where, by the way, the title 'Cardinal' 
has been prefixed to the Nuncio's name, having been inadvertently transcribed 
from an original Italian MS. document. 

* Father James of St. Dympna, probably. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 


Father Columbanus of St. Michael — who was then stay- 
ing in the college at Borne — furnished a list of the members 
of the Order in Ireland at the time of his own exile. Some 
of these names have not hitherto occurred in our narrative, 
and are given, most likely, as well as Father Columbanus 
could remember in order of the seniority of the religious by 
profession : — Fathers Patrick, Columbanus, Paul, Antony, 
Angelus-Joseph, Cherubinus, 1 John of the Mother of God, 
Iiaurence-Matthew, Laurence (whose family name was 
Plonket), Fortunatus, Cyril, Alexius-Mary, Gregory, 
Hilary, James, Andrew, John of the Cross, Patrick of 
St. Brigid, Casimir, James of St. Dympna, Dominic, 
Francis, Agapitus, Michael, and Columbanus — known in 
the world as the Bev. Arthur Merlyn. The students of 
the Irish Province were then — Brothers Paul, John of 
the Mother of God, Simeon, Thomas of the Nativity, 
Laurence, Bernard, Edward, and Dominic — some of whom 
had been received and professed since the departure 
of Father Columbanus from Ireland. There were nine 
lay-brothers : — Albert, Stephen, Francis, Bonestus, Nicholas, 
Luke, Bernard, Peter, and Antony. The friaries of the 
Province were, according to Father Columbanus : — 
Dublin, Ardee, Drogheda, Athboy, Kinsale, Galway, 
Limerick, Kilkenny and Loughrea. Probably this was, 
likewise, the order of the foundation of these monasteries. 

Although the Catholics of Ireland — both priests and 
people — were suffering a dreadful persecution in 1650, we 
find that the Irish Provincial and his two companions 
assisted at the General Chapter held that same year. But 
the fathers of St. Patrick’s Province were hopeful of a 
brighter future, so much so, that they now asked permission 
to make some new foundations as soon as ever their present 
trials had ceased. However, far from being able to carry 
out so sanguine a project within the next three years, the 
Irish Teresian Carmelites saw the barbarous Puritans in 
absolute power from end to end of the country, and in the 
subsequent General Chapter (a.d. 1653) there was even a 

1 Of St. Gabriel — one of the Definitore Provincial, who wrote the life of 
Father Thomas Aquinas (alluded to above, p. 272) in 1 elegant Latin.’ 

Digitized by 




question raised as to the expediency of declaring the 
Province of St. Patrick dissolved. Having expressed their 
deep sympathy for their brethren still struggling on in the 
Irish mission, the fathers of the Chapter finally decided to 
wait the issue of present events. 

The death of one of the Discalced Carmelites occurred 
in Ireland on the 2nd of August, J 653 ; and a few incidents 
in his career will show what the Irish missionaries of that 
period were called upon to endure. His name is mentioned 
in the list already quoted — Father Casimir of St. Cyril. 
The brief obituary notice was contained in a letter written 
to Father Isidore by another Irish father, Paul-Simon of 
Jesus Mary, who had escaped to Belgium ; and it was from 
Tournay that he wrote on the 30th of March, 1654. Father 
Casimir had remained in Ireland from the very beginning of 
the troublous times, attending to the spiritual wants of the 
faithful in such parts of the country as were entirely in the 
bands of the Puritans. He was thrice brutally beaten by 
the heretics for having dared to exercise the functions of 
the priesthood, and on six different occasions he was seized 
and cast into prison because of his zeal in preaching the 
Catholic faith. At length he died of the plague, contracted 
while administering the Sacraments to those stricken down 
by that awful malady. And we may well believe that bis 
fate befell many of his brethren in religion, whose names 
occur among those preserved for us by Father Columbanns. 

Another document of much interest and importance 
supplies us with the names of the Teresian friars engaged 
in the labours of the Irish mission during the year 1659. 
Father Agapitus of the Holy Ghost was Vicar-Provincial at 
the time, the other priests being — Fathers Paul of St. Ubaldus, 
Laurence of St. Thomas Aquinas, Stephen of St. Ubaldus, 
Columbanns of St. Dympna, Kieran of St. Patrick, Hilary 
of St. Augustine, John of the Mother of God, Columba of 
St. Michael, Angelus- Joseph of the Immaculate Conception, 
Thomas of Jesus, James of St. Dympna, and Father Cyril 
of St. Joseph, probably the religious who had a famous 
controversy, in the year 1662, with Father Peter Walsh, 
0-S.F., author of the Irish Remonstrance. Fathers John of 

Digitized by {jOOQle 


the Mother of God and Stephen of St. Ubaldas were in 
Dublin at the same time, and no doubt Father Cyril was 
bravely supported by them in bis fearless action. In allud- 
ing to this matter in a letter to bis Superior-General, 
Father Cyril deeply deplored the condition of Catholics in 
Ireland at that epoch. The priests were still subjected to a 
harassing persecution, for, if they declined to sign the 
Remonstrance, they were either driven into exile or thrown 
into prison, as the author of that Loyal Formulary took 
care to explain to Father Cyril on his refusing to comply 
with so shameless a request at the conclusion of the cele- 
brated conference. According to Father Cyril the six 
religious who then formed the Teresian community in 
Dublin exercised their missionary duties secretly among the 
faithful of the city, but with marvellous success. They received 
many converts into the Church ; indeed, he assures us, so 
zealous were the Irish clergy, both secular and regular, that 
within two or three years the Catholic population of Dublin 
increased to fully twelve thousand, whereas at the ‘ Resto- 
ration* the faithful could hardly have been asixth of that 
number. The priests were equally diligent in other parts of 
the country ; but the Teresian missionaries used to complain 
that the reason why many more conversions had not been 
made was the diffiulty of getting the heretics so much as to 
speak to a Roman Catholic. 

The Discalced Carmelites of the Irish mission seem to 
have been most anxious to secure a novitiate of their own 
on the continent about the year 1665 ; but just then circum- 
stances prevented them from getting possession of the 
monastery at La Rochelle ; and when at last that house was 
given over to them, it is doubtful whether they were in a 
position to devote it to the purposes which they had so long 
in view. In any case they obtained permission to open a 
novititate at Aix-la-Cbapelle in the year 1677 ; but no 
further mention is made of this foundation. Of course the 
difficulties of sending postulants abroad at this period must 
have been extremely great ; still we are told that the mission 
was comparatively always well supplied with priests : Father 
Rede Travers — one of the most zealous of the English 

Digitized by 



missionaries — informing us that between the years 1669 and 
1670 there were at least twelve members of the Order in 

It may be taken as a proof of the rigorous trials to which 
the Irish missionaries were being subjected in 1680, when we 
find that the Procurator of the Teresian Carmelites could 
not assist at the General Chapter assembled at Bologna that 
year. The father deputed to attend the Chapter of 1683 did 
reach Rome in time ; but he had suffered so severely during 
the journey that he was unable to be present at the sessions. 
It is said that King Louis XIY. of France tried to influence 
the decisions of this Chapter for political purposes ; but, of 
course, his efforts were of no avail. 

With the terror of the Oates’ Plot still hanging over the 
land, the mere suspicion of being a priest was deemed more 
than a sufficient cause for arrest and examination before the 
notorious perjurer himself, or before any of his agents. Yet 
while tbis persecution was at its very fiercest, Father Charles 
of St. JohD, accompanied by Father Lucian Travers, came 
over to Ireland to make the canonical visitation ; just as if 
the province was in a most flourishing condition, and the 
country in a state of the profoundest peace. Father Lucian 
— like his step-brother, Father Bede Travers — had himself 
a very distinguished career on the English mission. One 
incident in his life has endeared his memory for ever to Irish 
Catholics. He it was, together with another Discalced 
Carmelite, named Father Gaspar of the Annunciation, who 
had the privilege of assisting the venerable Oliver Plunket 
on the scaffold, and reverently placing the heroic confessor’s 
head and limbs in a chest immediately after the execution. 
This act of piety on Father Lucian’s part gave great consola- 
tion to the horror-stricken faithful, who dreaded lest the sacred 
relics should be left any time exposed or otherwise wantonly 
profaned (a.d. 1681). A little later on, a.d. 1686, we find 
an Irish Discalced Carmelite — known in religion as Father 
Augustine — who had been sub-prior at Ancona, received 
permission to return to his native land to devote himself to 
the duties of the mission. He accompanied Father Bede 
Travers, who was returning to England at that time. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 


Although they often suffered from hunger during their 
perilous journey over the Alps until they at length arrived in 
Cologne, they would not avail themselves of any of the dis- 
pensations allowed by their Rule. They were compelled to 
use a disguise, and we are told that instead of the beads at 
his side, Father Augustine now wore a sword ! 

Finally, we have a list of the Teresian fathers in Ireland 
in the earlier half of the eighteenth century. The names 
are already included among ‘The Obits* of the Province; 
but we may insert them here again, following the order in 
which they occur in the document before us. 1 Thus we are 
informed that when Father Patrick of St. John Baptist — 
who had been sent over by the General of the Order, Father 
John Bernard (a.d. 1725) — was Vicar-Provincial, the follow- 
ing religious were engaged in the labours of the mission 
either in the friary at Wormwood-gate, Dublin, or at the 
Abbey, Loughrea : — Fathers Paul of the Cross (Kenny), 
Nicholas Coleman, Joseph-Renatus (Rev. Ralph Kilkenny), 
Robert Fitzgerald, Felix of St. John Baptist (Rev. Patrick 
Dodd), Marcellus Cullen, Francis of the Blessed Sacrament 
(Coleman), Urban of Jesus Mary (Rev Matthew Bamwall), 
Angelus Antony of the Immaculate Conception (Rev. John 
McDonagh), Sylvester Mary of St. John Baptist (Tumulty), 2 
Joseph Francis, Stephen of Jesus (Rev. John Lawless), 
Patrick of St. John the Evangelist, whose secular name 
was Hart. An Englishman called Father Onuphrius of 
St. Teresa (Rev. Edward Aisley) had died in Dublin in the 
year 1711. With exception of Fathers Paul Kenny and 
Nicholas Coleman — uncle of Fathers Columbanus and 
Nicholas Coleman, who were brothers — these priests were 
all under forty years of age at the time the list was drawn 
up ; several of them having been but recently ordained ; 
while there were nine other young religious destined for the 
Irish mission, still pursuing their studies on the continent. 
This list had been submitted by Father John of the Cross, 
who was himself about to return to this country when he 

1 Carmel in Ireland , pp. 232, 233. 

9 Several of these names are written somewhat differently in the Obituary — 
also translated Jrom the original MS. 

Digitized by CjOoqL e 



died. It is a truly sad sign of those times that he had 
to warn his Superiors not to use the title ‘ Father ’ or 
‘ Reverend ’ when writing to the members of the Order in 

Indeed, the nineteenth century was well advanced before 
the trials of the Irish Discalced Carmelites, in the discharge 
of their missionary duties, had ceased. In a letter, dated 
the 25th of June, 1803, written by Father John Francis of 
St. Brigid, to one of the 8uperiors-Oeneral at Rome, we 
see that owing to the disturbed state of the country it was 
quite impossible to admit postulants to the Order in Ireland. 
Two of the Irish students were then in Lisbon and three in 
Spain, and there were now some aspirants whom the fathers 
would gladly send to Italy — very difficult though it then was 
to communicate with Rome, because of the wars on the 
continent. Father John Francis mentioned various other 
troubles which the religious had to strive against, but, like 
the Irish Teresian missionaries of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, who never appear to have been at all 
despondent — no matter what privations and sufferings they 
had to endure — he was hopeful for the future, and spoke in 
glowing terms of the grand new church which was being 
built by the members of the Dublin community. It was to 
be the largest and most beautiful sacred edifice in all Ireland. 
Not so very many years ago, men who are still in their prime 
of life, might have rightly thought this same church of 
St. Teresa’s, Clarendon-street, but a humble structure, only 
too painfully reminding the devout worshippers there of the 
trials and struggles of the Irish clergy during the terrible 
penal days. 

James P. Rushe, o.d.c. 

Digitized by 


[ 281 ] 






4 Ad oonstet de virtutibus Theologalibus Fide, Spe, Caritate in 
Deum et proximum, nec non de Cardinalibus Prudentia, 
Iustitia, Fortitndine ae Temperantia earumque adnexis in 
' gradn heroico in casu et ad effectum de quo agitur.' 

Singulari Dei providentis consilio factum est, ut per hos dies 
quibus apud ipsas gentes, quae humanitatis cultu atque etiam 
catholico gloriantur nomine, nequicquam reclamantibus bonis 
omnibus, benemerentissimis Familiis religiosis acre bellum in- 
fertur, publice per Apostolicam Sedem honori et memoriae 
prospiciatur eorum qui ex iisdem Familiis vitae sanctitate atque 
insigni meritorum laude admirabiles extiterunt. 

Hos inter merito accensenda est virgo ilia fortissima de 
Christiana puellarum institutione deque omni fere humana9 vitae 
oonditione optime merita Maria Guilelma Aemilia De Bodat 
Instituti Sororum a S. Familia Mater legifera oui ad bonores 
Beatorum Goelitum paratur ascensus. 

Ortum habuit in pago Druelle in Gallia prope civitatem Bodez 
ex honestis piisque parentibus, Infantula in oppidum Ginals 
duota sedulae aviae curis ita respondit, ut uberior ex tenera ilia 
aetate fruotus desiderari non posset. In pietatem prona ac divini 
amoris aestu succensa, a mundi illecebris aliena, patientia 
et lenitate excellens etsi fervidiorem indolem sortita, in egenos 
benefica, magnam de se expectationem excitavit praeolaris animi 
dotibus ac virtutum praestantia. Nacta occasionem anni sacri 
mdccciv innoxium corpus mira austeritate coercuit. Christian ae 
propagandae fidei cupidissima, ac mire studiosa divinae gloriae, 
salutisque communis, ad futurum caritatis ministerium viam quo 
dammodo stravisse visa est adsoitis sibi sociis puellis aliquot, 
quibuscum de Peo ac coelestibus rebus crebro diuque colloqueretur T 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



Annos nata decern et octo monasterium ingressa est cui nomen 
a matre Saint-Cyr, ubi munus diligentissime obivit Fidei rudimenta 
tradendi puellis, easque ad sacrum convivium rite disponendi. 
Earn domum annos undecim incoluit licet interrupts, quod in 
pluribus Bororum aliarum aedibus frustra religiosam vitam peri- 
olitata est. Ad pristinam denique sedem reversa et aegrotis 
curandis destinata, de nova constituency Familia puellis egenis 
erudiendis alendisque cogitavit. Consilio in rem deducto, alterum 
brevi aperuit ludum nobilioribus puellis instituendis. Mox agerorum 
ourae et eorum solatio qui eustodia detinerentur ; sorores alias 
addixit nulla claustri lege obstrictas; item aedes condidit pro 
mfantibus, domosque recipiendis foeminis quas a via lata et 
spatiosa ad arctam salutis semitam Christiana caritate traducebat. 
Haec autem institutio multiplex qua Yen. Dei Famula nullum 
ferme caritatis genus omisit, celeriter per omnes Galliae provincias 
propagata est. 

Ita per labores, sollicitudines, aerumnas plurimas Dei gloriae 
et proximorum saluti quum optime consuluisset, fractis tandem 
corporis viribus, pretiosam in conspectu Domini mortem obiit 
decimo tertio calendas Octobris an. mdccclii. 

Aucta post obitum fama sanctitatis quam in omni sibi vita 
comparaverat, praesertim ob prodigia quae ipsius invocatione a 
Deo acta ferebantur ; de eius vita rebusque gestis rite instituta 
est inquisitio, servatis omnibus quae in huiusmodi Causis ex 
Apostolicis Constitutionibus sunt praemittenda, de eiusdem 
virtutibus initum examen ab hac S. Congregation©. 

Triplex itaque hac de re habita est disceptatio. Prima sexto 
idus Maii anno mdcccxcviii penes Bmum. Cardinalem Lucidum 
Mariam Parocchi Episcopum Portuensem et S. Rufinae Causae 
Relatorem; altera in Aedibus Vaticanis octavo calendas sextiles 
anni insequentis ; tertia in conventu generali ibidem habito quarto 
calendas Martii volventis anni coram SSmo. Domino Nostro 
Leone Papa XIII; in quo ab eodem Rmo. Cardinali proposito 
dubio : 1 An constet de virtutibus theologalibus Fide, Spe, Caritate 
in Deum et proximum, nec non de cardinalibus Prudentia, Iustitia, 
Temperantia, Fortitudine iisque adnexis in gradu heroico 
Ven. Servae Dei Mariae Guilelmae Aemiliae De Rodat in casu 
et ad effectual de quo agitur.’ Rmi. Cardinales et Patres 
Consultores singuli suffragia tulerunt. Sanctissimus autem 
Dominus Nos ter mentem suam aperire distulit, admonuitque ut 
in re tanti momenti divinum lumen instantius exposceretur. 

Digitized by 



Hodierno vero die Dominica infra octavam D. N. Iesu ad 
coelos ascendentis, divinae maiestatia Hostia devotissime immolata f 
ad nobiliorem Vaticanae Aedis aulam accedens Bmos. Cardinales 
accersivifc Dominicum Ferrata S. RR. Congregationi Praefectum 
et Lucidum Mariam Parocchi Causao Relatorem, una cum R. P. 
Io. Baptista Lugari Sanctae Fidei Promotore et me infrascripto 
a secretis, iisque adstantibus solemniter et rite edixit : * Constare 
de virtutibus theologalibus Fide, Spe, Caritate in Deuin et proxi- 
mum, nec non de cardinalibus Prudentia, Iustitia, Temperantia, 
Fortitudine iisque adnexis Yen. Servae Dei Mariae Guilelmae 
Aemiliae De Rodat in gradu heroico in casu et ed effectum de quo 

Hoc autem Decretum publici iuris fieri et in acta SS. RR. 
Congregationis referri mandavit decimo quarto calendas Iunias 
anno mdcccci. 

Dominicus Card. Ferrata, S.B.G. Praefectm. 

L. * S. 

Diomedes Panici, Archiep. Laodicen., Secretarius . 




Beatissimo Padre, 

II Vicario Gen. dell* Archid. di Cosenza supplica, perche nelle 
dispense matr. per causa di peccato, non s’ imponga penitenza 
alcuna, per la ragione che si mette in pericolo la validita dell’ 
esecuzione, massime quando trattasi di penitenza grave e diuturna. 
Ha prove che la penitenza si accetta fintamente : e poi ccrtamente 
non si pratica. Sarebbe bene che per la penitenza se la vegga il 
Confessore, e che nella concessione delle dispense non se ne 
parlasse affatto. 

Sacra Poenitentiaria ad praemissa rescribit : Poenitentias in 
executione dispensationum matrimonialium omnino imponendas 
esse, sed omissum earumdem adimplementum secum non ferre 
dispensationis invaliditatem. Et notet orator in imponendis 
poenitentiis, quae non specificantur, ab executore rationem haben- 
dam esse conditionis aetatis, virium aliarumque qualitatum 
personarum, quibus dispensatio impertitur. 

Datum Romae in S. Poenitentiaria, 14 Septembris, 1891. 

R. Card. Monaco, P.M . 

R. Celli, S. P, SubstiU 

Digitized by 





Beatissimo Padre, 

Nolle dispense di oooalto impedimenta gli autori provati 
insegnano che, se il Confessore, per oolpevole negligenza, non 
impone la penitenza, gravemente pecca, ma seeondo la quasi 
oomune sentenza, la dispensa siesegue validamente : non veto si 
poenitem , gravem suscipiendo poenitentiam , intentionem earn im- 
plendi non habeat. Insegnano che pur valida sar& la dispensa 
se la confessions sara nulla e saorilega, o anche se non si riceva 
assoluzione. Siceh& non dalla invalid ita della confessions, e 
dairinadempimento posteriors della penitenza, ma daH’intenzione 
di non adempirla i predetti Teologi fan derivare V invalidity della 
dispensa. Di tali finzioni ne awengono continuamente, oioe di 
aooettare la penitenza senza intenzione di adempirla. Per questo 
si mand6 la prima supplies, senza di questo motivo quells 
supplies sarebbe stata per lo meno inopportuna. 

Sacra Poenitentiam Dilecto in Christo Vioario scribenti 
super praemissis respondet : Clausulae praescribenti impositionem 
poenitentiae censeri satisfactum etiamsi ficto animo ab iis susci- 
piatur qui dispensantur. 

Datum Bomae in S. Poenitentiaria, 12 Novembris, 1891. 

R. Card. Monaco, P.if. 

A. Can. Martini, S.P. Seer . 




Dominica prima Iulii alicubi festum Deiparae celebratur sub 
titulo 1 Refugium peccatorum ’ cum officio et Missa de Communi, 
prima tantum Oratione, quae propria est, excepta. Quod profecto 
nulla difficultate laborat, cum de parte aestiva agitur. Sed vero 
accidie aliquando, ut dictum festum transferri debeat ad tempus 
paschale, et dubium eo iq casu oritur super lectionibus HI 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



Noctumi in officio recitandis. Namque Evangelium huiusce 
Mis8ae de Communi, tempore paschali, est Stabant iuxta Cracem : 
in Breviario autem deest Homilia praefato Evangelio respondens. 
Hinc quaeritur : Quomodo est agendum in casu eiusmodi festi 
taanslati ad tempus paschale ? 

Et S. B. C., referente subscripto Secretario, audita sententia 
Commissionis Liturgieae ao reliquis mature perpensis, rescri- 
bendum censuit : In casu adhibeatur Missa B. M. V. de tempore 
paschali a Pasoha ad Pentecosten, retento Evangelio Loqucnte 
Iesu, de Missa B. M. V. a Pentecoste ad Adventum : cui Evangelio 
respondet Homilia III Noctumi offici proprii B. M. V. sub titulo 
‘ Refugium peccatorum. 1 Atque ita rescripsit servarique mandavit. 

Die 3 Septembris 1900. 

0. Card. Alois j-Masella, Pro-Dat . S.R.C. l'ro-Praef. 

L. * S. 

Diomedes Panici, S.R.C. Secretarius . 

Digitized by 

[ 286 ] 


A Medieval Hero of Carmel. Being an Historical 
Sketch of the Life and Times of St. Peter Thomas, 
Carmelite Bishop and Martyr and Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople. By the Rev. P. T. Burke, O.D.C. Dublin : 
Sealy, Bryers, & Walker. M. H. Gill & Son. 

To all Carmelites and their very numerous friends and 
followers, and to many also outside that favoured circle, Father 
Burke's new volume cannot fail to be welcome. It is a memoir 
of one of the most remarkable men of his age, a learned man 
and a holy man, a scholar, a saint, and a martyr. These are 
characteristics that might be sufficient to recommend him to Irish 
readers. But the times in which he lived and the part he played 
in those times lend an interest to his career which is not always to 
be found even in the life of a saint. 

‘The fourteenth century,' writes his biographer, ‘as is well 
known, was a period of great importance. The spirit of true 
Christian chivalry was dying. Attempts were still being made to 
revive the crusades ; but the arms which European princes had 
used in defence of Christianity against the infidels were now 
wielded in mutual quarrels. The bond of union between the 
Churches of the East and West was once more broken. The 
ravages of the black plague all but depopulated Europe. The 
Papacy had suffered from the internal dissensions of the Italian 
princes, and the Popes sought security under the protection of the 
French crown. The great centres of learning, the universities, 
still continued to exercise much influence, and any student of 
the history of the time cannot well overlook their origin 
and development. Now with all these St. Peter Thomas was 
connected. He spent many years at the great Paris university, 
and was founder of the Theological Faculty in the University 
of Bologne. He lived in Avignon during the residence of the 
Popes in that city. He laboured in bringing help and consolation 
to those who suffered from the 4 black plague.' He was sent by 
the Sovereign Pontiffs on various legations to Italian princes. 
On two 'occasions he went as Apostolic Legate to the East to 
labour for the reunion of the Greeks with the Church of Borne, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



and finally his death was due to his efforts in leading a new 
crusade against the Turks/ 

It is natural that the fame of the saints and martyrs should be 
in all the Churches, and no more striking illustration of the fact 
could be found than that the labours of this French scholar and 
martyr of [the fourteenth century should be commemorated away 
here in Ireland at the beginning of the twentieth. 

J. F. H. 

Sermons. By the Most Rev. Dr. Moriarty, late Bishop of 
Kerry. Edited by the Most Rev. Dr. Coffey, Bishop of 
Ardfert and Aghadoe. 2 vols. Dublin : M. H. Gill and 
Son. 1901. 12*. 

We have only just received these two fine volumes, and in the 
time at our disposal cannot do more than notify their appearance 
and commend them to the earnest attention of our readers. Books 
of sermons we have in abundance, but it is not every day we meet 
with a series of sermons specially suited to the needs of Irish 
priests, and dealing in a masterly fashion with subjects that are 
of burning, practical interest in this country. It is not, therefore, 
the priests of Kerry alone, to whom the work is appropriately 
dedicated, but the priests of all Ireland and Irish priests all over 
the world who must feel deeply indebted to the learned and dis- 
tinguished Bishop of Kerry for having so oarefully and piously 
collected the sermons of his illustrious predecessor and given them 
to the public in these two fine volumes. 

One of the best books that has issued from the Irish Catholic 
press in our days is the volume of Dr. Moriarty's ‘ Allocutions and 
Addresses ’ which Dr. Coffey published some years ago. That 
work gave an insight into the character of their author, and 
enabled his countrymen to view his life and labours in the per- 
spective of history and in something like the unity of its purpose. 
They had heard his name for many a day, and had read many of 
his pronouncements separately in the newspapers. But these 
connected documents revealed to them, in some measure at least, 
the life-springs of his aotivity, his strong faith, his simple and 
unaffected piety, his vast learning, his practical knowledge of Holy 
Scripture, and his wonderful power of applying it in the happiest 
way to the themes with which he had to deal, a power which 
reminds us of Bourdaloue and Massillon, and sometimes even of 
the great Bossuet himself. All these things made Irishmen proud 

Digitized by {jOOQle 


28 $ 

■ ~ .tS 

of the great successor of St. Brendan, and made him rank in their 
esteem high amongst the great ohurohmen which this little island 
has given to the world. Assuredly, the impression made by the 
* Allocutions ’ will be not only confirmed, but strengthened and 
enhanced by the ( Sermons.’ 

Beginning with the * Address to the Soldiers of the Kerry 
Militia,’ on St. Patrick’s Day, 1855, what could be more appro- 
priate or in what book of sermons could an Irish priest who 
has anything to do with soldiers find help and inspiration 
more suited to his purpose ? Many of the ‘ Sermons,’ more- 
over, recall some special and historio celebration, such as 
‘ The Consecration of Kilkenny Cathedral,’ ‘ The Laying 
of the Foundation Stone of Maynooth College Chapel,’ * The 
Dedication of Longford Cathedral,’ ‘ Sermon at the Synod of 
Maynooth, 1875,’ 1 Opening of St. Patrick’s Churoh, Mayo Bridge,’ 

1 Opening of the Dominican Church, Tralee.’ There are panegyrics 
not only of some of the great saints of the Church like St. Francis 
of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Paul of the Cross, St. Vincent de Paul, 
St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Laurence O’Toole, but also of some of 
the notable Irish churchmen of the day, such as Dr. Egan of Kerry, 
Dr. Blake of Dromore, Dean McEnnery of Tralee. But perhaps 
most useful to the busy priest, will prove the sermons on such 
subjects as ‘Charity to the Poor,’ on ‘Scandal,’ ‘Lust,’ ‘Anger,’ 
‘ Avarice,' ‘ Gluttony,’ ‘ Penance,’ ‘ Sin and its Punishment,' and 
on some of the principal devotions, suoh as the sermons on the 
‘ Quarant ’Ore,’ ‘ St. Joseph,’ ‘ St. Patrick’s Day,' ‘ Dedication of 
the Churches of Ireland,’ ‘ All Saints’ Day.’ 

Taking all things into account we can offer our unqualified 
congratulations to the Bishop of Kerry, on the good work that he 
has accomplished. We feel that no words of ours are needed to 
commend what he has done, and we only express the hope that 
the two volumes he has given us, may soon find a place in every 
priest’s library, and in every student’s library as well. Colleges 
and schools might go further, to seek for premiums for their 
‘ laureati,’ without being rewarded for their enterprise with better 
value. In literature, as in many other things, it is enough for a 
book to appear in Ireland to be neglected by Irishmen. 

As there seems to be a revival of Irish industries of every kind, 
may we not hope that Irish Catholic literature may get something 
like fair play from Irish Catholics. 

J. F. H. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



m Vi Ckri&timiila H Romani irfr'f ** “ As you are children of Christ so be you children of Rome. 4 * 

Ex Dtciis 5 . PatncU, In Libro Armacano , foL 9 . 

The Irish 

Ecclesiastical Record 

g JSUmtfjlg Journal, unUer Cfpiacopal Sanction. 

OCTOBER, 1901. [ 

Agnosticism: A General Sketch. 

Rev. P. Coffey, Maynooth College. 

The Significance and Use of the Scapulars. 

Rev. L. Oosterlaan , St. Joseph’s, Mill Hill, London. 

Is Rome Necessarily the Seat of the Papacy? 

Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P. , Rugely. 

Adolph Kolping. 

Dr. C. H. Montague- Clarke, Maldon, Essex. 


Rev. John Murphy , Ballarat. 

Notes and Queries. 

Liturgy. Rev. P. CL Leary, D.D., Maynooth College. 

The Irish Privilege of Anticipation of Matins and Lauds* 


Termination of the Prayer Fidelium on All Souls’ Day. 


Permission for Mass on Board Ship* Mass to be said at Dedication of a Church. Solution 
of Doubts Relating to the Calendar. The Validity of Certain Marriages. 

Notices of Books. 

Church Music Series. The Irish College in Paris (1578-1001). Geographical and Historical 
School Reader for Third and Fourth Standards. The Bible and Rationalism. 
Meditations and Exercises for the Illuminative Way. Magiater Adest; or. Who is 
Like Unto God ? The History of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 

Nihil Obstat. 

Censor Dtp* 


* Gulolmus, 

Archicp . Dublin* 
Htbcmiac Primate 

r * 


SUBSCRIPTION: Tomb* SKBmg* Mr Annum* Pul Tree, Payable m advance 





■. - .t - »- ■ - »« 



lAyr TAT^ «Cl,e500,000. 

WTBD ytTNUa, 4086 , 000 . 

wosKxnrs ooKpa»a&.Tios. buboxiAxt. 

MmUrmte /V ww wwu. Jmm$mtkmbe Amnmmmi ef C& 


/Vbw^ JUWrauMlp M g d ttwi t Mm4m> h nf w etimt Prm i 



BTOAiD H. 0»EBILLY, Mantgor, 

Private Residence for Cure of Excessive Use of 

Special Treatment for Aioohoikx D/ssom has been soccsaafally 
— fshHihari in Glasgow since August, 1898 ; in DUBLIN since August, 1899, 

Duration of Treatment— THREE WEEKS ONLY. 

Te rm* mmd mil imfermmtim fmrmuhmd by the Mmmmgsr or Surwtoy, 




AU c emm mutmHona Avidly +ri**U' 


By every 

Prices from 

£10 to 300 Guineas. 

By every 

Prices from 

6 to 300 Guineas. 

Prices from 

5 to 150 Guineas. 


Applied to all Instruments flail, I Ifll 

from 10/- per Month. 


to 150 Guineas. I I HHHmmi^^mnn 




PERIS, 1883. 




Carriages , Ralll Carts, 
Polo Carts, and Outsltl* 
Cars marie & repaired. 

eferenoes to Clergymen 


T HERE are certain great questions which have ever 
forced themselves in upon the mind of man. So 
profound are they that they cause him deep concern. 
He may not dismiss them even if he would, for their 
import is momentous ; and ever and anon with new persist- 
ence they call for some solution. Has he an immortal soul ? 
Whence has he come ? Whither will he go ? Is there an 
unseen world of spirit ? Is there a God on whom he depends 
ard. to whom his allegiance is due? These are the great 
problems which are at once the reason and the root of all 
Science and of all Religion. Examination of them has given 
rise to many a system, has made and unmade many a creed. 
In the various departments of Physical Science, the facts of 
the visible world of sense have been examined and analysed 
with much care. In the domain of Psychology, man’s own 
inner nature, the constitution of his wondrous faculties of 
thought and feeling, have been minutely and diligently 
explored. Even his perceptions of truth, that world of 
relations which his mind creates and perceives — the world 
of Metaphysics, of Mental Philosophy proper — has been 
thoroughly investigated, and forced to yield up its secrets to 
the man of thought. And all this goes on and will go on 
to serve the one great purpose : to help man to solve the 


Digitized by LjOoq Le 



puzzle of his past, present, and future ; to bring him, if bo 
be, to the bottom of things where no one can ask the further 
raison why. 

This is the work of the philosopher, but while he dreams 
the world worships ; for, at all periods of the world’s history, 
the masses of men generally have accepted some solution or 
other that pleased and satisfied them, and have expressed 
their belief in such explanation by some form of religious 
worship which embodied the popular creed. Thus natural 
religion shows itself to be the supreme Philosophy of 
Ultimate Causality: the recognition and worship of the 
First Cause by man. Now, it is an undeniable fact of 
history that human reason, as embodied in the over- 
whelming majority of the race, has been Theistic, has 
recognised a Supreme Being or Beings, a God or Gods, and 
has worshipped accordingly. Equally undeniable is it that 
men have almost as universally believed in a revelation or 
revelations made by the Deity to man : that they have not 
rested in natural religion merely, but risen to the super- 
natural. Thus has reason ever dictated the reasonableness 
of faith. In the very universality of Theism — and of 
Christianity among civilized nations — we have an a priori 
presumption in favour of their. truth. If the universal 
sentiment of humanity be, at all, a guide to truth, its 
testimony is surely worth weighing in the matter of natural 
religion which springs so directly from the constitution of 

Season points to faith in much that concerns this great 
mystery of the Ultimate Cause. And why should it not ? 
Does it not tell us that assent to the unseen on trustworthy 
authority is an absolutely indispensable condition for the 
maintenance of social life ? I was never in Borne, but I 
believe firmly there is such a place. I never saw Julius 
Cffisar, yet I believe that he lived and waged the Gallic war ; 
and the agnostic does not call me credulous therefor. 
Though I never saw Christ, I believe that He preached the 
Sermon on the Mount, and drove the herd of swine, with 
their demons, into the lake of Genesareth ; and forthwith 
the agnostic grows indignant because I cannot see as clearly 

Digitized by 




as he does that the evidence in the latter case is worthless, 
and because I do not believe him when he tells me that it is 
so. Now, to deny revelation is the sure way to deny natural 
religion soon afterwards. To deny that God has spoken is a 
preliminary to denying that He exists. So thought Cardinal 
Newman, and he passed through the fire of tribulation, of 
doubt and misgiving, if ever man did. And no wonder it 
should be so ; for neither truth is there such mathematical 
evidence forthcoming as will force assent. But to refuse 
assent to the fact of revelation, for want of such or similar 
direct evidence, is surely the height of unreason. Beyond 
the testimony of the senses, beyond internal evidence of 
objective truth, there are other criteria of certitude, other 
motives that call for assent. Authority is one which bears 
the hall-mark of reason, when its credentials are duly tested 
and admitted. Every day of our lives authority must satisfy 
us in accepting a thousand and one things which we may 
never hope to explore for ourselves. And reason tells us 
it is just. 

But it is the more fundamental question of the existence 
of God, and the consequent value and validity of what is 
called natural religion, that exercises men’s minds most 
nowadays. Believers in the existence of a Supreme Being, 
distinct from this universe, may be conceived to have 
arrived at this belief in either of two ways. It may be due 
to what Mr. Herbert Spencer depreciates as the mere acci- 
dent of birth, but what we would rather designate as the 
wonderful divine favour of being brought up from infancy 
in the faith, as the vast majority of believers are ; 
or it may be that an unbelieving adult comes to believe 
in God by the due and proper exercise of his thinking 
and reasoning faculties. In this latter case the reasonable- 
ness of consequent faith is manifest. In the former it is 
just as great even if not so manifest. When the child of 
tender years is asked the question : 4 Who made the world ? ’ 
and promptly answers ‘God,’ does he act one whit less- 
reasonably than the learned agnostic philosopher, who 
reverently tells his questioner that he, for one, does not 
know* Ask the little boy further, how does he know, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



At once the answer : ‘ My parents told me so ; and I see no 
reason to doubt their word.’ And if, at any time afterwards, 
he does see reasons to doubt, he is free as a Catholic — nay 
bound, if his doubts persist —to face them boldly and to 
settle them by finding further and firmer reasons for the 
faith that is in him. His enquiry may indeed fail to reveal 
to him the ultimate why and wherefore of what he believes, 
but he is not so foolish as to abandon his belief then and 
there on that account. He knows from his experience of a 
thousand and one happenings of every-day life that proofs of 
the existence of a fact are one thing, proofs of its how and why 
and wherefore quite another thing, and that the former are 
very frequently forthcoming without the latter. When, for 
example, he sees a tiny snowdrop bloom in the early spring- 
time, he is absolutely certain that it is blooming there ; that 
is, if he be a man of common sense and not a philosopher 
of a certain school. But ask him how and why it blooms 
there, and you soon bring him face to face with a problem 
which the most eminent scientists are giving up in despair : 
that mysterious enigma, the constitution of a simple living 

The believer, then, of the ordinary type, has been reared 
up to his beliefs. He assented to the existence of God and 
the fact of revelation on the authority of his fellow-man in 
the first instance. Later on, perhaps, he accepted those 
same truths on the authority of the Church when its infal- 
libility had been brought home to him by intrinsic evidence 
or by the weight of human authority. Having once firmly 
grasped these preliminary truths he has next received, fully 
and without reserve, the contents of the divine revelation, 
on the authority of God revealing. This assent of faith is 
at the same time so reasonable and so firm that rarely, if 
ever, during life is he troubled with doubts about the 
dogmas he has thus embraced. If the ordinary believer 
seeks at all for direct proofs of God’s existence, he is satis- 
fied, and not unreasonably, with considerations arising from 
the physical argument, or the universal persuasion of man- 
kind — considerations which may not appear convincing to 
the critical mind of the trained and enquiring unbeliever. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



The internal compactness and completness of the whole 
Catholic system, the wonderful harmony of all its parts, its 
never-failing power to satisfy all the cravings of the human 
heart, to respond to the very noblest aspirations of man’s 
higher nature, all this and much more that might be 
spoken in its praise, not only stamp it as divine before the 
world, but also safeguard those who know it from within, 
while they test its validity and explore its worth with all 
that exactness and severity which its strength and its 
pretensions confidently challenge. But while we, Catholics, 
can feel so contented in the consciousness of our blessed 
inheritance of truth, we must not forget that outside the 
fold there is no such peaceful calm. Unrest, uncertainty and 
turmoil everywhere prevail. With this reflection we may pass 
to the subject we propose to consider at some length — that 
wide world of religious doubt and philosophic speculation 
which is covered by the comprehensive title of ‘ Agnosticism.’ 
There are positive unbelievers : those who say they have 
fully convinced themselves that there is no God. Under 
one form or othe* of atheism their number is legion. With 
them or their doctrines we have nothing to do. The question 
of their sincerity would form a sad, but withal interesting 
subject for not a little study. An inquirer might suppose 
a number of young Englishmen born of educated, unbelieving 
parents, brought up as atheists, educated at some Free- 
thought university, breathing an intellectual atmosphere 
laden with doubt and uncertainty, and agitated by anxious 
religious and philosophic inquiry, enjoying the privilege of 
intercourse with the greatest intellects of their time, coming 
into contact with almost every form of religious creed, 
examining and analysing all beliefs and systems from their 
own infidel standpoint. Taking this crowd of humanity as 
his proper study, our inquirer might ask himself how long 
possibly or probably would its individual members remain 
in the bond fide inculpable conviction that there is no God 
— how long might each without offending say : 

I take possession of man's mind and deed, 

I care not what the sects may brawl. 

I sit as God, holding no form of creed, 

But contemplating all. 

Digitized by A^OOQle 



It would be wrong to judge of individuals. Even about 
the class it would be nearly useless to speculate. Whether 
they could or not it is not very likely that they would remain 
long in the smug conviction that God is nothing but a word. 
In all human probability they would soon begin to doubt 
and suspect, to question old convictions, to examine new 
reasons ; and after a short time if they were honest with them- 
selves, their answer to the question : 1 Who is God?’ would 
be a long, painful pause. So it is with multitudes in English- 
speaking countries of to-day. Tossed about with every 
wind of doctrine, in tbe clouds and darkness of the night, 
they seek laboriously — let us hope not often in vain — for 
the kindly light of truth. No wonder they are anxious 
and disturbed, for see what is at stake. No mere abstract 
theory but a great momentous fact. One that will not be 
settled by any mere formalism but by the full play of all 
nature’s powers and by an honest and vigorous fidelity to 
the dictates of conscience and of truth. No wonder they 
call for our sympathy and help, those weak but honest 
wayfarers, who tread the perilous path perhaps from the 
utter darkness of positive atheism to the full light of God’s 
truth in His own Catholic Church. 

Those earnest toilers, however, are but a handful of 
lowly ones. Abroad stalks the demon of human pride, 
deceiving the doubtful, waylaying the wavering, whispering 
in the name of Modern Science, Rationalism, and Free- 
thought, that * It is man’s privilege to doubt ’ ; even assum- 
ing the shape of an angel of light — that spirit of false 
humility which permeates modern, up-to-date Agnosticism 
— to seduce the weak and the unwary, and lead them away 
from the path of truth. It is about this latter-day enemy of 
God and His Church that we wish to speak. We can hope 
merely to touch on many of its phases in those pages, for it 
is a hydra-beaded thing, and from all tbe various sciences it 
draws many votaries, consciously or unconsciously, under its 
blighting influence. 

The growth of Agnosticism in the world of English 
thought is only the gradual and logical development of the 
erroneous principles of Locke and Hume and Berkeley, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



under the influence of that spirit of independent thought 
and private judgment, implanted and fostered in England 
by the Reformation. The briefest backward glance, to show 
how such a school of thought has worked itself out, will 
make this manifest. 

Seeing that Agnosticism claims to be in perfect accord 
with human reason, to be, in fact, nothing more than a 
vigorously perfect use of that faculty, it may be well to state 
at once that Catholics can and do proclaim themselves 
agnostics in that meaning of the term. Anyone who 
withholds his assent to a proposition in which be has 
no sufficient motives for believing, is so far forth an 
agnostic. He does not know whether such and such is 
true. He may have a suspicion or an opinion one way or 
the other, but until be sees more reason for an intellectual 
assent to either side he suspends his judgment. Now it is 
an interesting fact that the man who is responsible for the 
term 4 Agnostic/ and who has stood sponsor for the system, 
has always maintained that he never attached any other 
signification to the word — which he invented for describing 
to the world his own mental state in matters philosophical 
— than the very orthodox and laudable one which we have 
just indicated. Professor Huxley is generally taken as a 
fair exponent of the agnostic position. That is, in so far as 
it is a definite position, defended on the same principles by 
representative writers of any note, for it is an undeniable 
fact that in the world of English Philosophy scarcely any 
writer of great ability can be relied on as speaking in behalf 
of any school and not for himself alone. Speaking for 
himself at any rate, in his Essays on Christian Tradition , 
Professor Huxley explains his position in the following 
terms: — 

Agnosticism is not properly described as a * negative creed/ 
nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses 
absolute faith in the validity of a formula which is as much ethical 
as intellectual. . . . That it is wrong for a man to say that 

he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he 
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. . . . 
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate is the contrary doctrine 
that there are propositions which men ought to believe without 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



logically satisfactory evidence ; and that reprobation ought to 
attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported 
propositions. 1 

Now, this is a clear exposition of Agnosticism, in its 
negative sense, as a philosophic method, an attitude of mind 
to be assumed by man in his search after truth. As such no 
one can quarrel with it. If an agnostic is only a man who 
candidly confesses that there are a great many things he 
does not know, who asserts there are many truths which 
the human mind has not yet discovered, who refuses to 
believe without sufficient reason, then indeed are we all 
agnostics, or ought to be. But if it be easy to coin a word 
it is not always so easy to dictate its meaning to the public. 
They will have their own way, and whatever Professor Huxley 
may have wished the word to mean, it is universally taken 
nowadays not only for that exact method of thought out- 
lined by its inventor, but; also for a certain definite creed 
which is the outcome, not indeed of the use but rather of 
the abuse of that method. Perhaps it would be more 
accurate to describe Agnosticism as a denial of all traditional 
creed, and a scientific contention that many things which 
men have heretofore supposed that they knew about the 
world beyond sense and behind phenomena, about the world 
of substance and of spirit, about the origin and Final Cause 
of all things, are not only really unknown, but, of their 
own nature, absolutely and forever unknowable to man. 

The abuse of reason which has led to such extra- 
ordinary conclusions, is widespread and universal. It is 
sadly interesting to observe how men of undoubted genius, 
like Huxley and Spencer and Tyndall and Arnold, at the 
very time they raised their voices in complaint and protest 
to warn their generation against that narrow-minded and 
onesided attitude towards truth which they looked upon as 
the bane religion had brought upon their age — how they 
themselves were completely led astray by the self-same 
narrow-minded spirit; for that spirit springs also from a 
science that will not know God. While Herbert Spencer 

1 Page 310. The italics are our own. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



arraigns religion for usurping a groundless authority oyer 
men’s minds, he himself would have us sweep away that 
Philosophy which is the condensed wisdom of the human 
race, and that Religion which has ever been its civilizer, to 
replace them by a vast speculative system of physics, built 
on an unproven if not unprovable hypothesis ! While 
Professor Huxley smiles at the childish credulity that 
embraces Christianity in its fulness, he would have us 
measure all truth by his own pet biological standards ! And 
so it is with the rest. Pew men, if any, can hope to be 
proficient in all departments of knowledge ; and is a man 
to reject everything not proved by himself? We have 
already touched on the unreasonableness of such a disposi- 
tion ; and yet it would seem as if each of our modem 
agnostics wished to measure all the attainable truth in the 
universe by the criteria of some one special department or 
other in which he himself happens to be an expert. It 
would, of course, be too evidently ridiculous to demand, in 
matters of religion, the sort of evidence that is forthcoming 
in Euclid’s Elements, and we do not allege that they go so 
far. But we do maintain — and any impartial student of 
their teachings will maintain — that it is their decided 
tendency. Add to this their prejudice against Christianity 
— a prejudice which unconsciously, but quite unerringly, 
warps their reasoning processes — and a sufficient reason for 
their far-away wanderings will be abundantly manifest. 

In their loud condemnation of the principle of authority 
do those men forget that even the conclusions of natural 
science are accepted to-day by the millions, not on the 
evidence of demonstration, but on the authority of those 
eminent men of science who form its Ecclesia Docens ? 
This is a fact often lost sight of nowadays ; and one of its 
wholesome applications is this : that popular Agnosticism is 
simply a system of blind credulity towards the dicta of our 
agnostic scientists upon all topics under the sun. Can this 
be the consummation devoutly wished for by the apostles of 
Agnosticism? They are accused of entertaining such an 
ambition. If they do, their contempt for authority is an 
extremely awkward characteristic of their school. If, for 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



instance, some disciple were to say to his master : ‘ Ne 
mtor ultra crepidam would it be very becoming fojr the 
master to urge his authority on the point in dispute ? 

Of the Agnostic tendency of English thought a full and 
sufficient reason will be found in the various influences 
which have made themselves felt in English systems of 
philosophy during the past three hundred years. Perhaps 
the deepest and most fundamental of those influences will 
be found to have existed so far back as the sixteenth 
century. The Reformation taught men to discount the 
value of authority and to attach supreme importance to 
private judgment. Very soon was the English mind deeply 
leavened with the tendency to unduly emphasize the worth 
of immediate and direct evidence in all departments of 
knowledge, sacred and profane, and at the same time to 
depreciate and minimize the claims of external authority ; 
to make too much of the natural sciences where assent is 
based upon evidence that is mathamatical or nearly so — 
evidence that necessitates assent — and to throw into dis- 
repute the free intellectual beliefs of religion which are 
based upon authority and upon evidence of a less clear, exact, 
and cogent character. Such was the spirit of the century 
just past. Writing in the I. E. Record of May, 1891, a 
writer well says about it : — 

The world, it would seem, has passed its term of childhood 
and reached its years of reason. Faith and credulity and 
superstition have gone their way. We are wiser than our fathers ; 
we ask for proof, not authority. Such are the professions of 
the day. Whether the claim to this superiority is warranted by 
facts is another matter. 

With a people subject to such influences, and enter- 
taining such ideas, a method like Huxley’s, insisting on the 
right of reason to get scientific evidence for all its assents, 
was likely to prove a dangerous instrument. And it did 
prove a fatal one : for people can conveniently forget that 
Religion does not call for mathematical evidence, and that 
the truths of Philosophy do not require geometrical proof. 
Indeed it was, humanly speaking, inevitable from the 
beginning that men with small sympathy for Christianity 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



in its Catholic fulness, professing no respect for authority, 
assuming such an exacting, and, indeed, unreasonable 
attitude towards the nature of the motives which ought to 
command intellectual assent, should gradually make complete 
shipwreck of the faith, and find themselves lost in a wilder- 
ness of despairing doubt and scepticism. A just retribution 
for the Rationalism that pretends to know all things is the 
Agnosticism which declares that it can know nothing : and 
it is a retribution which has overtaken many. 1 The hopeless 
teaching that we can know nothing is the natural outcome of 
the arrogant claim to know all. * 1 Of course if these men had 
clung steadfastly to the dictates of right reason it would 
have brought them safely back to the true position which 
gives authority its due and rightful value in the search for 
truth. Reason’s task it is to scrutinize the credentials of 
authority and estimate its worth accordingly. But is the 
agnostic position reasonable which seems to deny, in fact 
if not in teaching, that authority has any credentials at all 
worth scrutinizing ? 

Those very men who have ever pretended to a better, 
stricter, and more scientific use of reason than the credulous 
and superstitious Catholic have left all over their elegant 
and voluminous writings inconsistencies so numerous, and 
contradictions so apparent, to the impartial reader, that he 
is forced to carry away with him the conviction that con- 
sciously or unconsciously they have been acting the part of 
special pleaders for a weak and doubtful cause. Our best- 
known modem agnostics are mostly natural scientists, yet 
it is notorious how unscientific they can be and often are, 
outside the domain of science, when they take up the baton 
in the field of polemics against Christianity, or when they 
wish to attract attention to some pet theory of their own. 
We say this in no spirit of carping criticism, but because 
from experience we know it to be true. Numerous illustra- 
tions we could give were it to our purpose and would space 
permit. Their writings abound in contradictions because 
they do not teach the truth. Their great fault consists in 

1 I. E. Rkookd, May, 1891, p. 402, ‘Office of Reason in Theology,’ 
W. H. Kent, O.S.C. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



that narrowmindedness whereby they apply to all sorts of 
truths the very exact standards which the exact natural 
sciences demand. Prejudice prompts them unconsciously 
to apply their criteria now exactly and now loosely so as 
invariably to arrive at foregone conclusions, to believe what 
they wish, and to reject the traditional faith that is so 
distasteful to them. They can easily bring themselves to 
see absolutely no virtue in the time-honoured proofs of the 
existence of God, and yet they can convince themselves 
that ‘ beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time,’ life 
sprang somehow or other from dead matter, while all 
attainable evidence points the other way ! 

It may seem strange that men who profess to be so exact 
and careful in their reasoning should stray so far from the 
truth. Yet, after all, it is not surprising. For the attrac- 
tiveness of that right of private judgment, and the seductive 
charm of a system that promised emancipation of the intellect 
from the thraldom of authority, that promised individual 
independence and freedom of thought, all this, and a false 
psychology as well, soon brought about a state of confusion 
where the wish was always father to the thought, where 
reason itself was dethroned to make room for sense, where 
thought was confounded with* sensation, and consciousness 
with imagination, where all was turmoil and contention, 
because the right order of things had been upturned and 
reason degraded by those very men who professed that they 
sought to emancipate and ennoble it. A system of psychology 
which gravely erred about the nature of the human faculties 
themselves, a system whose very foundations were rotten, is 
largely responsible for fostering that proud Reformation 
spirit and compassing the results which we deplore around us 
to-day. The unsoundness of the English Church by Law 
Established, its inability to bear the scrutiny of great minds, 
its want of any compact, harmonious and definite dogmatic 
system, its gradual disintegration, the tumult and conflict of 
the sects into which it has broken up, the consequent extreme 
difficulty experienced by its members in determining where 
any fragments of truth lay scattered, all these influences 
would, indeed, of themselves have certainly given to English 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



thought a tendency towards scepticism and infidelity. Con- 
sequently when they are found to have been exerted on 
people who were simultaneously the victims of an unsound 
and pernicious philosophic system, we need not wonder that 
England is growing more and more agnostic every day. 

We have been touching on some of the causes which 
we deem responsible for Agnosticism. Its natural parents, 
however, seem to have been the progress of the physical 
sciences under the inductive method, and the setting up of 
a false philosophy of experimentalism in the rightful place 
of Metaphysics. Of course in its negative aspect — taken 
merely 'as a philosophy of scepticism — Agnosticism is as 
old as Epicurus. But of the modern English article the 
first manifestations are discernible in Locke’s doctrine of 
phenomenalism. The first advocate of the philosophy of 
experience, the first to deny that what underlies phenomena 
— real substance — is at all knowable, the first, therefore, to 
aim a dangerous blow at Metaphysics, which is simply the 
science of real essences, Locke may be justly regarded as 
the father of English Agnosticism. The experience of 
sense can reach only phenomena; the inward essences of 
things lie beyond its sphere. But all our knowledge is only 
sense experience, and hence, we can know nothing whatso- 
ever about substance. Thus did Locke sweep away the 
whole world of first principles and universal truth. He 
misunderstood a formula used by the schoolmen : ‘ Nothing 
is found in the intellect which was not first in the sense.’ 
He would have all knowledge begin in experience and end 
there. The scholastics would have it begin but certainly 
not end there. * We have no knowledge except what we 
derive from experience,’ taught Locke. Except what the 
intellect draws from sensations experienced — yes; except 
what we gain by merely comparing the sensations them- 
selves — no. Here then was opened the yawning chasm 
which has separated Catholic Philosophy from Agnosticism 
and Materialism # and every other form of that system which 
denies to man those nobler faculties of intellect and will 
that distinguish him from the brute. Here did English 
philosophers commence that fatal error of misinterpreting 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



the process and the product of their own thought — of be- 
littling and degrading the very faculties by which they 
thought and reasoned. For them there was no cognoscitive 
power in man above sense. In their eyes the spiritual, 
thinking faculty, the universal idea, and its objective proto- 
type, the real substance, were so many * make-believes,* 
worthy of the ‘ dark ages,' and of those 'schoolmen,’ who 
were so fond of pretending to much knowledge of things that 
men do not and cannot know ! The advance of the natural 
sciences and the advent of the Evolution Philosophy fos- 
tered this lower view of human nature and its powers. The 
Philosophy of the Schools was deemed beneath contempt, 
and of course it was neither studied nor understood by those 
Englishmen who despised it most. But error cannot live 
and thrive on error; and in every age and in every school 
the truth will assert itself and live. The testimony of con- 
~ sciousne88 was found in the long run to have been as well and 
as faithfully analysed by the mediaeval schoolmen as by any 
philosophers of our modem schools; but these latter are 
loath to acknowledge and bow to the conclusions of the 
Catholic scholastics of a few centuries ago. Ever and anon 
the great fundamental and uudeniable fact of the universal 
concept presents itself for explanation. It is a strange 
inhabitant of the human mind, that ; it is a mysterious pro- 
duct of human thought, that mental image which mirrors 
forth to consciousness not this individual or that or the 
other, but something which is similar in all individuals of 
the class — not Peter or Paul or John, but / man ’ that is 
common to the three of them. What is the nature and 
origin of that mental image? The question is at the very 
root of all Philosophy. It is not our direct purpose here to 
vindicate the Catholic answer to it, nor expressly to examine 
in detail any modern views concerning it. We do think, 
however, that, in spite of any light the theory of association 
of experiences may throw upon it, and notwithstanding all 
that evolutionists may talk about a priori Arms of thought 
which may be the result of experiences stored up in the 
nervous systems of our ancestors and transmitted to us by 
heredity, — the universal idea stands forth as a fact which 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



defies explanation on any other grounds than by recognising 
in it the product of a spiritual faculty, altogether above and 
superior to matter and sense. The modern agnostic, how- 
ever, does not relish such an admission. Sooner than admit 
the plain explanation contained in Catholic philosophy, he 
rather denies that our knowledge of supra-sensible things 
is knowledge at all. He turns away and indulges in fan- 
tastic and unintelligible theories about the great root-fact 
of consciousness. He sits down and writes whole books for 
metaphysicians, to prove that neither he nor they know 
anything at all of what they are talking so much about. 

But while they appear so unreasonable in their con- 
tention that we can know nothing whatsoever about sub- 
stance or cause or necessity, let it not be thought that we 
Catholics err in the opposite extreme — that we pretend to 
kuow all or a great deal about those metaphysical entities. 
By no means. While we vindicate for human reason the 
power of gaining a real and certain knowledge of substance 
and cause, we are deeply sensible of the narrow limits that 
bound this knowledge and of the vast tracts of mystery 
by which it is surrounded. Even if substance is not 
the imaginary chimera of our agnostics.. but the true 
object of perception, we are, none the less, far from knowing 
all about it ; and there are many substances and causes quite 
beyond our ken. Our claim is much more modest, and yet 
is it truly great. For we claim to know something about 
those things, and we thereby advocate the existence of an 
interior faculty which transcends sensation, and which U3es 
the products of sense in order to bring into view the vast 
empire of necessary truth. We maintain further that the 
human intellect, using as instrument the principle of 
causality, can take those purified spiritual concepts which it 
has drawn from the products of sense, and can mould them 
into an irrefragable argument for the existence of a First 
Cause of all things, Personal, Intelligent, and distinct from 
this Universe which is the work of His hands. Does the 
man deceive himself who uses his faculties so? If he trust 
his senses which tell him of surrounding phenomena, why 
should he pay no heed to that inner voice which speaks of 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



things hidden from sense and leads him onwards and 
upwards to the world of the unseen ? Has he not as much 
or as little right to reject the intuitions of intellect as the 
perceptions of sense? Has he not just as intimate a 
consciousness of universal ideas as of sense perceptions, or 
are those mental pictures of ‘cause,* ‘substance,* ‘life,’ 
‘ spirit,’ to be accounted for by mere sense faculties without 
the aid of a spiritual faculty which we call intellect or mind ? 
If he reject the conscious products of intellect as unreliable 
why should he accept without question the evidence of 
sense ? If he be consistent he will go behind the evidence 
of sense as well as the first principles of reason ; and once 
there he has put an end to all possibility of science or 
philosophy of any kind whatsoever. 

Fortunately, or, perhaps, unfortunately, such thorough 
and consistent scepticism is not common. The materialist 
who denies the claims of reason admits those of sense ; 
while the idealist who chooses to doubt the objective 
reality of phenomena does not extend his scepticism to 
the world of mind. Continental Philosophy, following in 
the wake of Descartes, became gradually more and more 
subjective and idealist in its tendencies until, under the 
influence of Kant and Fichte and Hegel, sprang up 
that famous German school whose disciples ‘ found them- 
selves straying farther and farther from the path of truth, 
until at last they sank into the unintelligible doctrine 
of the Great Nothing .* 1 English Philosophy on the con- 
trary, dominated by the influence of Locke, has clung, 
more or less persistently, to the materialist position. But 
in trying to prop up error by error it has gone through many 
strange vicissitudes. It was illogical and self-destructive at 
the outset, and after the lapse of three centuries is no less 
so to-day. Locke was inconsistent in admitting the exist- 
ence of real substance, for sense does not tell us whether it 
exists or not. Berkeley was logical enough to doubt it, 
and to admit certainty only of present sensations. Hume 
pushed his master*s empiricism to the denial of spiritual 

1 1. E. Recoud, May, 1882, p. 2b7, ‘ Philosophy of Tennyson.' 

Digitized by {jOoq Le 



substance, advocating the doctrine of pure phenomenalism. 
This, of course, was a step unwarranted by his principles. 
He could, indeed, have denied that sense tells us anything 
about substance, whether material or spiritual. He could 
also have borne testimony to the existence, in his own mind, 
of the idea of substance, though that fact of consciousness 
would be to him inexplicable. But as to the objective exist- 
ence of substance to correspond with that idea in his mind, 
he had no more right to deny than to affirm it. Furthermore, 
might it not have occurred to him that sensation, being 
really nothing but the modification of subjective sense 
organs, gave no certainty of anything existing outside the 
organs themselves ? Well, at least, of the subjective 
sensations themselves he could be certain, for did not 
consciousness vividly testify to their reality? Very well. 
But consciousness just as vividly testifies to the reality of 
universal ideas in the mind : and if I choose to believe that 
the modification of my sense organs are produced by objec- 
tive phenomena, have I not the same right and the same 
obligation to believe that my universal ideas are produced 
by objective substances ? It is ever thus with those who 
rebel against the dictates of right reason, and refuse to trust 
their natural faculties and their primary intuitions of truth. 
Question the validity of any first principle, and you are soon 
forced to doubt the very testimony of consciousness itself. 
A writer who has given much thought to this whole subject 
very justly insists i that the philosophy of Locke, faithfully 
adhered to, first results in scepticism, then develops into 
materialism, and finally ends in idealistic agnosticism and 
mental paralysis.’ 1 Sooner than plunge into such a quag- 
mire, English philosophers generally prefer to shirk the logic 
that would inexorably land them there. Often, no doubt, 
they oscillate and waver dangerously near the brink of the 
abyss, as, for example, Professor Huxley does when he airily 
writes the following : — 

For any demonstration to the contrary, the collection of 
perceptions which make up our consciousness may be only 

1 1. E. Rxoobd, vol. viii., p. 887. 

VOL. X. U 

Digitized by i^ooQle 



phantasm agoriae generated by the Ego, unfolding its successive 
scenes on the background of the abyss of nothingness . 1 

Such a tit-bit of wisdom — worthy of the most mystic German 
idealist — is but the logical outcome of a scepticism that 
rejects first principles and questions the trustworthiness of 
man’s natural faculties. 

Indeed, in a certain sense it is to be regretted, as we have 
already hinted, that English philosophers do not care to test 
their theories by pushing them to their ultimate conclusions. 
They would then have a chance of seeing their unsoundness, 
for, to use the forcible language of a certain writer, the 
consequences of their principles are simply ‘ appalling.’ 

Science is deprived of objective validity. For all science deals 
with the universal ; but the objective counterpart of the universal 
is essence. The latter in so far as it is known being merely an 
abstract idea, it follows that all science is reduced to a knowledge 
of our mental states, or to Empirical Psychology. Religion which 
involves the recognition of a personal God, and of certain definite 
relations in which wo stand to Him, is essentially blind super- 
stition. For whether God exists or not, and whether, if He does 
exist lie concerns Himself about human affairs, or is not rather 
an Epicurian deity .... man should act according to his reason, 
and take no heed of matters that his reason declares tobe unknown 
and unknowable . 2 

And another writer already referred to sums up the 
results of the system in those pregnant words 8 : — 

Thus [ho says] in the light of Locke’s philosophy, the whole 
fabric of physical science disappears, and we ourselves are left 
with so many bundles of sensations face to face with nothing. 
Thus, too, our great physicists who know everything, and outside 
whose ranks no one else knows anything, those very sapient 
guides cry out at last that we are all equally ignorant, forasmuch 
as there is nothing to be known by anyone, and that the most 
perfect dreamer is the most learned man. What a sublime 
philosophy ! 

But the philosophy of empiricism was encouraged by 
the vast strides made in recent years in the domain of the 

1 I. E. Record, December, 1892, ‘ The Spirit of Modem Science,* by 
Rev. T. E. Judge. 

2 Ibid . 

5 I. E. Record, vol. viii., 1887. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



physical sciences. Here, indeed, experience, observation, 
induction, achieved wonderful results. Then they began to 
be applied to the subject matter of pure mental philosophy. 
And the men who thus applied them seem to have forgotten 
that those very criteria rest ultimately on the metaphysical 
principles which they would fain deny or ignore. It was 
when men sought to dethrone the principles of 4 causality * 
and 4 nature’s uniformity,* and to set up 4 experience ’ in the 
place of 4 metaphysics * that the confusion and doubt and 
Agnosticism began in earnest . 1 Our knowledge is limited 
to sense experience, said Locke. Who ever saw or felt 
causation or causality, asked Hume. Succession in time 
and space we know, but cause — what is cause ? A thing no 
one ever heard or touched — a figment of the imagination ! 
Away then with causality, the basis of all a posteriori 
reasoning, the condition of all proof for the existence of 
God ! Yes, experience is indeed a solid basis on which to 
build a philosphical system, given the requisite instruments, 
intellect as well as sense — admitting the universal idea and 
the necessary truth as the grand achievement of the higher 
faculty, as sensation is of the lower. But once deny those 
transformers of sense experience, and try to build on ex- 
perience alone, and you pull down with the left hand what 
you built up with the right. Yes, on the road to knowledge, 
experience is a safe guide as far as it goes, but it is not the 
only guide : indeed it goes only a very little way. 

It tells us what has been, it says nothing of what must be. 
Now, it is on necessary truths — on musts — that all science is 
founded ; hence the philosophers of the English school, though 
priding themselves on their devotion to science, set out on prin- 
ciples which, if consistently followed, would reduce us to the level 
of long-memoried brutes. 2 

This is a conclusion which, one should think, philosophers 
would shrink from. Not so, however, for it tallies admirably 
with the modern theory of Evolution. Professor Huxley, 
for instance, an admiring disciple of Hume, pushes the 

1 See I. E. Record, August, 1884, 4 J)r. Ward’s Philosophy of Theism,’ 
p. 484, tgg. 

2 Ibid., p. 479. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 

308 " 


latter’s scepticism so far as to assert that what we call laws 
of physical nature are nothing more than conjectures, more 
or less safe or hazardous, of what will take place in the 
order of nature — conjectures based on our multiplied ex- 
periences of what has taken place in the past. The idea of 
physical necessity of any sort — of what he calls the iron 
law of must — he consistently scouts as an unauthorized 
intruder into the domain of science . 1 

A few pages back we referred to some of the attempts 
made by the empirical school to explain away the universal 
idea and the necessary truth, and so patch up the self- 
destructive philosophy of pure experience. 

All those attempts have, of course, been futile. Many 
of them are ingenious and elaborate, and not a few have a 
peculiar interest in connection with our present subject. 
The Association theory, identified with John Stuart Mill, 
has been often examined and found wanting, notably by 
Dr. Ward in his Philosophy of Theism. Mill tries to rob 
all truth of its necessity, to show that such an element does 
not belong to the objective order, but is only attached on to 
our perceptions by the activity of our own minds. Constant 
and oft-recurring similar sensations, following one another 
in some particular set of circumstances, foster in us a strong 
inclination to believe what may not at all be true — that 
they will and must occur in the same order in similar cir- 
cumstances in the future . 2 This consideration he develops 
at great length with a view to explaining away those primary 
analytical truths which are the first principles of all know- 
ledge, and the immediate objects of our intellectual intuitions. 
The logical results of such a system would be universal 
scepticism, pure and simple. We draw attention to it here 
merely in illustration of a truth on which we must ever 
strongly insist : that, to deny any one primary truth cuts 
from under one’s feet all ground for accepting the remain- 
ing truths of that important class. By denying to man’s 
mind a God-given power to see those primary truths 
immediately and intuitively, by the light of objective 

1 Fide I. E. Rkoord, vol. viii., p. 496 (18b7). 

2 Ibid. vol. viii, pp. 306, 424. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



evidence shining in upon it, just as man’s eyes see the 
landscape in the shining noonday sun, the philosopher has 
gone the sure way of denying their natural power to 
memory also and even to consciousness itself . 1 

In recent years English Philosophy has undergone 
another interesting development which so bears upon 
our subject as to call for at least a passing notice. The 
idealistic philosophy of Kant and the German schools, to 
which we referred above as being the very antithesis of 
empiricism, has been making its influence deeply felt in the 
world of English thought. The blend of the two erroneous 
extremes might, in other circumstances, have augured well 
for the cause of the golden mean. But the extremes met, 
unfortunately, in the minds of men who would think of 
anything sooner than of entertaining the remotest idea of 
examining the moderate realism of the schoolmen, to see, 
if mayhap, the truth might lie there after all. And so two 
wrongs have not produced a right. 

They have, however, produced some curious and very dis- 
heartening anomalies in the literature of later-day English 
Philosophy, especially when they are seen engrafted on to 
the great native growth of the Evolution theory. We have 
a good example of this state of things in Professor Huxley 
when he puts on the cloak of Kantian subjectivism to teach 
the world what it is to understand by faith for all future 
time : a sort of feeling or consciousness by which ‘ men 
constantly feel certain about things for which they strongly 
hope, but have no evidence in the legal or logical sense of 
the word. . . . Who can or shall forbid man * to believe 
thus ? 4 But/ he continues, 4 let him not delude himself 

with the notion that his faith is evidence of the objective 
reality of that in which he trusts / % Here, certainly, Kant 
and Hume speak through their disciple, while he gently 
insinuates the desired impression that Christian faith 
is an unreasonable superstition as it stands. He thinks, 
further on, that this same faith in Christ, as the 4 ideal of 

X I.E. Rboobd, toI. p. 481 ; vol. viu., p. 422. 
Q The italics are our own. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 



manhood,* is likely to be replaced by something better 
when found incompatible with our knowledge ! 

Thus does he quietly prepare the way for Herbert 
Spencer and his grand modern cult of the Unknowable ; for 
Matthew Arnold’s strange new Deity, revealed to a wonder- 
ing world as * the eternal not-ourselves that makes for 
righteousness.* By such writing does he try to turn men’s 
minds and sympathies in the direction of modem agnostic 
science, with the new idols that are its gods and the nature - 
worship by which it attempts to supplant religion. Huxley 
was an adept in the art of throwing discredit on Christianity 
and on Christ its God. It is interesting to see how, in the 
sceptical and over* exacting spirit of Hume, he applied to 
the Bible the tests of the natural sciences ; how he demanded 
for its authenticity an almost mathematical evidence, with 
the effect of rejecting as unreliable the sacred books for 
which he sometimes professed such reverence. Supernatural 
Religion he set aside as altogether out of court because 
unscientific. Natural Religion he undertook to * bring into 
line ’ with the requirements of ‘ modern science * — that is 
of Evolution. He got the article ready-made from his friend 
Herbert Spencer and he has worked might and main to 
popularise it. According to this new Gospel we are to learn 
that the only form of religion in concord with the ‘ teach- 
ings* of * Science’ — dictated in fact and forced upon us by 
‘Science* — is the cult of the Unknowable; and so there 
arises a new aspect of Modern Scientific Agnosticism, when 
we regard it and proceed to consider it as the religion 
taught by Evolution to Mankind. 

P. Coffey. 

Digitized by CjOoq Le 

[ 311 ] 


O NE of the most striking proofs of the strong bond of 
union existing between the various members of the 
Roman Catholic Church, is perhaps the origin of the now 
common devotion of the scapular. From its very beginning 
it bore the impress of a deep-seated Christian love, and a 
desire to extend to the whole Catholic community the privi- 
leges of the few. For the scapulars now common among 
the laity were, we are told, from the very outset nothing 
less than the scapulars worn by the different religious orders, 
and reduced to smaller dimensions for the convenience of 
the faithful. 1 This being so, we practically receive the habit 
of the various orders, and by wearing it we conform m a 
certain sense to the object and spirit of the order whose 
special dress it forms. These scapulars are approved of by 
the Holy See and carry with them many indulgences, partial 
as well as plenary, . both in life and at the hour of death. 
This should be an incentive for all to follow St. Alphonsus* 
example : * For my own part,’ he tell us, 1 1 have been careful 
to receive all these scapulars.’ 8 

Of the many kinds of scapulars the four principal and 
most ancient ones are : the scapular of the 4 Holy Trinity/ 
that of the Seven Dolours of our Lady, that of i Mount 
Carmel/ and the scapular of our Lady of Mercy. There 
are two scapulars of later origin, viz. : that of the 
* Immaculate Conception * and the 4 Passion.’ Those of still 
more recent date are the scapular of 4 St. Michael 9 (20th 
April, 1882), of 4 St. Joseph 9 (15th April 1893), of our Lady of 
4 Good Counsel ’ (21st December, 1893). In addition to 
these we have the approved scapular of the Sacred Heart. 
It used to be a badge rather than a scapular, being a picture 
of the Sacred Heart on white woollen material and worn on 
the breast. It is now conferred with blessing and enrolment 

1 Deer. Auth. No. 423. 

3 Glories of Mary. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



bat has no Bpecial confraternity. 1 According to a custom, 
approved of by the Holy See, some of these scapulars may 
be joined together ; thus we get four or five, viz. : that of 
the Holy Trinity, that of the Seven Dolours, that of the 
Immaculate Conception, and that of the Passion of our 
Lord combined. To these the scapular of Mount Carmel is 
sometimes attached. 

We shall deal briefly with the following points : — 

(i.) The matter, form, and colour of scapulars, (ii.) The 
blessing of, and the enrolment in the scapulars in general, 
(iii.) The blessing of and enrolment in the four scapulars 
combined, (iv.) The Sabbatine privilege of the scapular of 
Mount Carmel. 

L The Form, Material and Colour of the Scapulars . — 
Scapulars, as they are worn by the faithful, consist of two 
pieces of woollen cloth, united to each other by two bands 
or strings. We must follow the directions with regard to 
the form of these pieces of cloth. It has been settled by an 
answer of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgence, August 
]8th, 1868, which requires that the scapulars should be 
oblong or square, in accordance with the custom hitherto 
observed in making them, and should not be changed into an 
oval, round, or polygonal shape: * Hucusque generalis viguit 
usus conficiendi scapularia formae oblongae, vel saltern 
quadratae. . . . Qaaeritur itaque utrum alia forma praeter 
oblongam vel quadratam obstet validitati scapularis ? 
S.C.I. resp. Nihil esse innovandum, 18th August, 1868.' 

As those two pieces of cloth form the essential part of 
the scapular, the two strings or pieces of tape are necessary 
only, in so far as they admit of the scapular being worn in 
tbe proper manner ; the restrictions therefore with regard 
to the colour and material have only reference to the pieces 
of cloth. The two bands, with the exception of the strings 
of the scapular of the Passion, may be made of any material 
or colour. The material for the Bcapulars must be real and 
pure wool. Cotton or similar material is not allowed : 
‘Ratio est quia parva scapularia alia non sunt, quam 

1 Cf. Moochegiani, ColUctio Indiilg. n. 882, teq , ; approved 4th April, 1901. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 


scapularia variis ordinibus religiosis propria, pro majori 
fidelium commoditate ad parvam formam redacta.’ 1 * * ‘ Unde 
sicut ilia ex lanea textora proprie dicta non vero raticulata 
ant subcoacta conficiuntnr ita et baec simili modo confici 
debent.’ 1 And this material must be woven or real cloth , 
so that if it be merely woollen thread worked by the needle 
in the form of a scapular, it mast be regarded as not 
satisfying the requirements of the Sacred Congregation : 
4 Utrnm vox pannus, panniculus, ab auctoribns communiter 
asnrpata nsui debeat in sensu stricto, i.e. de sola lanea 
textura proprie dicta? Resp. Affirmative, 18th August 
1868 ; 6th March, 1895.* It is, however, allowable to 
adorn scapulars with embroidered figures or symbols com- 
memorative 6i our Lord’s Passion in gold, or silk of any 
colour, but it is essential that the necessary colour of the 
scapular should predominate : ' dummodo ornaments talia 
sint ut color praescriptus praevaleat.* 8 The meaning of 
these words is clear from an answer given by the Consultor : 

Non videri obstare ornaments, si haec sint aocessoria et soapu- 
laria per ea non immutentur. Oportet tamen ornamenta esse 
exigua, ita ut prima fronte cognosoi possit quale scapulare sit. 
Si enim istis ornament is magna scapularium pars obtegeretur, 
cum non amplius scapulare dignosoatur, de ipsa validitate esset 
dubitaodum . 4 

From this, however, we must not conclude that a 
scapular, having one side covered either by an embroidered, 
or stitched, or printed picture of our Lady, as is often the 
case with the scapular of Mount Carmel, would be against 
the regulations. The Sacred Congregation has plainly 
spoken in a decree of June 18th, 1898 : * Hinc non valent 
scapularia, quae quamvis ex lana confecta, ita ex utroque 
latere cooperiuntur, ut pannus penitus aut quasi penitus non 
apparent.’ In fact the only thing to bear in mind is that 
what is special to each scapular, should not be hidden from 
view. For example the side of the scapular of the Holy 

1 Deer. Auth. No. 423. 

a Haine, Theol. Mor, 

8 18th August, 1868. 

4 Ada S . Sedis. yol. iy., page 102. 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



Trinity, on which the red and bine cross is worked, must not 
be covered by another picture. 1 * * From this last decree* 
it would not be quite correct to infer that scapulars, when 
made in strict conformity with the prescribed regulations as 
to the colour, form, and material, allow of no covering in 
order to prevent them from getting soiled. That the Sacred 
Congregation does not object to this manner of wearing the 
scapulars, Beringer proves in the Theologisch-praktische 
Quartalschrift , 1899, page 213. Provided, therefore, the 
covering remains (separated from the scapulars) and covers 
them in such a manner that they may be used or removed 
at will, the prescription of the Sacred Congregation would 
appear in no way violated and the wearer would not be 
deprived of the corresponding indulgences. 

The Colour . — The various scapulars have different colours. 
For the four scapulars, which are usually combined together, 
the following regulations are laid down : — 

The scapular of the Most Holy Trinity must be made of 
white cloth, with a small cross of woollen material worked 
in the centre, the portion representing the length being red, 
that of the cross-piece being blue. Usually we find this 
cross on both pieces of cloth composing the scapular, but it 
is in the strictest sense sufficient if it be placed on that part 
which is worn on the breast. Still, to be quite sure, it is best 
to have the cross on both parts of the scapular, and not to 
depart from this custom. 

The scapular of the Seven Dolours of our Lady is to be 
made of black cloth. 

The scapular of our Lady of Mount Carmel ought to be 
tan colour , but brown or its variations, and even black will 
do. 8 It is, however, advisable, in order to distinguish this 
scapular from that of the Seven Dolours, especially if we 
combine four or five scapulars together, to use brown as 
being the most suitable colour. Occasionally we find on 
one side of this scapular a representation of our Blessed 
Lady ; but this is not necessary : ‘ Imago B.V. quae ponitur 

1 Cf. Coll. Ind. ... a Patr. Mocchegiani, n. 825. 

3 Jane 18th, 1808. 

* Deer. Auth. No. 278. 

Digitized by t^ooQle 


ordinarie super unius oris partem non est necessaria sed 
est tantum pius et laudabilis usus.* (Instruction which is 
added to the faculty.) 

The colour of the scapular of the Immaculate Conception 
is sky blue , and this colour is, according to an answer of 
the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, August 22nd, 1842, 
absolutely necessary; but the representation of our Lady 
with the Child Jesus in her arms is not required : * Quae 
panno vel sagulo (sic Summ. Auth.) conjungi solet Mariae 
Virginis imago ornamenti loco habenda est, ut Christi 
fidelium pietas mag is magisque excitetur.* 

The requirements of the scapular of the Passion are, 
that it should be red , that its two bands should be of 
woollen material of the same colour, that its two pieces 
chould have, one a representation of our Crucified Redeemer, 
the other a representation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus 
and Mary. 

When a scapular, which has been used in the blessing 
and conferring, or if the one which we at present wear is 
not in accordance with the above-mentioned regulations we 
cannot, notwithstanding our bond fides , gain the indulgences 
which have been granted to it. 

But to remedy this, the Very Rev. Provincial of the 
Capuchins in Pennsylvania has obtained from the Holy See 
an indult rectifying the reception of the various scapulars 
in the case of those who have received them invalidly. 

Tr. P. Hayacinthus .... quum saepe invalide fiant 
recoptiones ad scapularia, .... humillime supplicat, ut 
Sanctitas vestra omnes recoptiones invalidas ad sodalitatem vel 
Unionem Scapularis cujuscumque, bona tamen fide peractas 
sanare dignetur. Resp. Ssmus. Dominus Leo XIII. benigne con- 
cedere dignatus est ut adscripti cum aliquo defectu ut in precibus, 
ab hinc indulgentias singulis Scapularibus proprias lucrari valeant. 
20 Jul. 1884/ 1 

All those, therefore, who before the 20th of July, 1884, 
have invalidly received one or more scapulars, and have 
been enrolled in the confraternity of those scapulars, can 

1 Tablet , December 6, 1884. 

Digitized by L^ooQLe 



gain the attached indulgences, without a renewed valid 

It would, however, be imprudent to stretch the meaning 
of this rescript so far as to conclude that in the case, where 
the scapular itself, which we have received, was invalid as 
to the form, colour, etc., that in such a case it would not be 
necessary to change this scapular for a valid one. 

II. The Blessing and Enrolment . — Having made sure 
that the material of our scapular is perfectly in accord- 
ance with the requirements, the next condition to gain the 
indulgence is, that it should be blessed and given with the 
prescribed formula by a priest, who has the power to do so ; 
moreover, the names of the recipients should be inscribed 
in the register of the Confraternity (if one exists). 

No blessing of, or enrolment in, a scapular can validly 
be performed except by a priest, who has the necessary 
faculty . 1 * The granting of this faculty for any particular 
scapular belongs directly to the superior of the order to 
which the scapular belongs, and is usually not given directly 
by the Holy See. 

In making use of the faculty, we must strictly adhere 
to the tenor of the same. We cannot go beyond the limits 
of time and place, without invalidating the blessing and 
enrolment ; when, therefore, those places, where there is a 
monastery of the order, are excluded in the faculty given us, 
we cannot validly bless or bestow the scapulars there.* A 
convent of nuns' of the same order would obviously not 
interfere with the faculty. However, a compliance with the 
condition * de consensu,’ or ‘ licentia ordinarii ’ (should this 
be expressed), is also required for the validity . 3 

A priest who has received the faculty to bless and enrol 
in one or more of the scapulars, is not therefore per se 
empowered to change any of the obligations of the members 
of the sodality, * nisi expresse enuntietur in Rescripto 
Concessionis pro benedictione et impositione scapularium, ’ 
although at present this permission is usually granted with 

1 ilescr. Auth. No. 444. 

fl Deer. Auth. No. 326. 

8 Deer. Auth. No. 438, ad 2m in fine. 

Digitized by 



the faculty to give a blessing with plenary indulgence in 
articulo mortis . 

One who has received the faculty to give the scapular to 
others, is also authorised to give it to himself, provided his 
faculty extends to the class to which he himself belongs. 

‘ Sacerdos sibimet imponere potest scapulare, qui habet 
facultatemjndiscriminatim minime vero taxative .* 1 Thus a 
priest can give himself the scapular, when he has that faculty 
for the faithful in general, for the diocese or parish to which 
he belongs, but not if his faculty is given solely for some 
particular purpose, say a convent of nuns . 9 

The scapulars must not only be blessed, but also be con- 
ferred by the same priest. This is evident from a decree 8 
in which the Sacred Congregation concludes that the 
indulgences cannot be gained by the faithful, ‘ qui pro 
ingressu in societatem habitnm benedictum de manu 
sacerdotis auctoritatem habentis non receperunt,’ and this 
is confirmed by a later decision of the Holy See : 4 
4 Ceterum in impositionibus in futurum peragendis ab 
eodem sacredote scapularia imponantur, a quo ipsa 
scapularia benedicuntur.’ But these decrees apply only to 
the first and original reception, so that after having once 
validly received the scapular we can always change it for a 
new one, even though not blessed, without losing our right 
to the indulgences. 

An exception was formerly made for the scapular of the 
Blessed Trinity, every one of which, before being worn, 
had always to be blessed, but by a recent rescript of the 
Sacred Congregation 5 his Holiness Pope Leo XIII. has 
abrogated this special precept, so that the same rules hold 
good now for the scapular of the Blessed Trinity. 

When many present themselves to be enrolled, it is not 
necessary that a different scapular should be used for each 
person. The same scapular can be used for the valid 

* 7th Maich, 1840. 

2 Deer. Auth. No. 280. Deer. dd. 16 Julii, 1887. 
8 18th September, 1862. 

* Deer. Auth.“No. 430. 

5 24th August, 1895. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



enrolment of any number of persons ; but in this case the first 
scapular, which every one afterwards takes for himself, must 
have been blessed. 1 And Beringer, commenting on this, 2 
says that the blessing of scapulars need not always take 
place in the presence of those who are going to be enrolled. 
If, for example, in conferring scapulars on a great number 
of people some scapulars are left over, we can make use of 
these for the enrolment of others without reblessing them, 
and so we could give the scapular previously blessed in the 
above-mentioned way to a sick person, employing a short 
form for the imposition. It is not necessary when con- 
ferring the scapular to suspend it round the neck of the 
recipient, it is sufficient if it be put on one shoulder. 

However, the prescribed formula must be adhered to in 
the blessing and conferring. A single sign of the cross over 
the scapulars without employing the set form of words and 
the blessing with holy water, whilst having only an inten- 
tion to admit into the sodality those who desire to be so 
enrolled, will not be sufficient. 3 In this decree is stated 
(ad 1“) * Benedictio et impositio danda est juxta formulam 
praescriptam, ad normam decreti 18 Augusti, 1868/ The 
question and answer here referred to are: — 

(2°) Utrum hujusmodi formula usurpari solita in actu imp 09 i- 
tionis scapularium essentialis sit, ut, etc. ... an vero absque 
indulgentiarum dispendio possit omitti praesertim in morbis above 
urgent i casu ? Resp. (ad 2 m ) Tam ad prim am quam ad 6ecundam 
partem proferenda esse verba, quae sunt substantialia ad formam 
decreti hujus Sacrae Congregationis diei 24 Augusti, 1844 : quod 
sic sonat : An rata sit fidelium adscriptio confraternitati B.M. V. 
de Monte Carmelo, quae fit a sacerdotibus quidem facultatem 
babentibus, non servata tamen forma in Rituali et Breviario Ord. 
Carmebtarum descripta ? S. C. respondit : Affirmative dummodo 
sacerdotes facultatem habentes non deficiant in substantialibus. 
neque in benedictione, et impositione habitus, ac in receptione ad 

According to the answer ad 3 m Deer. 27 April, 1887, the 
declaration ‘de servandis substantialibus/ although expressly 

1 Der r. Auth. No, 421, ad 2. 

2 11 Theiliu., Abechnitt, loS. 

3 Vide Deer., 27th April, 1887. Nouvelle Revue Thcol., tom. xix. 366. 

Digitized by AjOOQle 


given with regard to the scapular of Mount Carmel may be 
applied in the same way to other scapulars. 

It seems, therefore, that although the use of the pre- 
scribed formula is necessary, not everything therein 
expressed is required for a valid blessing and enrolment, 
but only the essential parts, viz., those which express the 
blessing, the conferring and the enrolment (where necessary 
into the confraternity. We can now apply this general rule 
to the particular formulas for the five following scapulars. 

The short formula for the scapular of Mount Carmel, 
approved of by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24th July, 
1888 (which therefore can always be used), contains nothing 
that is not essential, nothing therefore can be left out. 
Viz., 1 accipe (accipite) hunc habitum benedictum.’ In the 
formula for the scapular of the Most Holy Trinity the prayer 
4 Omnipotens sempiteme Deus,’ and ‘Dens qui per Sanctos/ 
etc., can be left out without touching the essential part. 

In that of the scapular of our Lady of the Seven Dolours, 
the first part seems to be merely an introduction (‘ omni- 
potens sempiterne Deus). 

The formulae for the scapulars of the Immaculate 
Conception and that of the Passion, seem to be essential in 
all their parts. Probably the last part ‘En Ego * with what 
follows, as having reference to enrolment in a confraternity, 
could be left out as these scapulars require no enrolment in a 
confraternity (vide Beringer). But, when there is no reason 
for omitting, it is better to use the whole prescribed formula. 

In conferring’ a particular scapular on a number of 
persons at the same time, the blessing is pronounced only 
once over all the scapulars together, according to the pre- 
scribed formula, but in the plural number (in numero 
plurali). This will also suffice for the formula of the 
* imposition ’ and * admission ’ into the sodality. 1 

The Sacred Congregation was asked : 1 Utrum lioeat sacerdoti 
in impositione scapularium ab ecclesia approbatorum omnibus rite 
peractis dicere semel numero plurali formulam : Accepite fratres 
vel sorores, etc., imponendo succesive et sine interruptione scapulare 

1 Deer., 18th April, 1891. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



omnibus praesentibus vel potius formula numero singulari pro 
singulis sit repetenda?* Respondit S.C.I. (18th April, 1891). 
Affirmative quoad primam partem : negative quoad secundam, 
uti decretum est in una valentinensi die 5 Febr., 1841, ad dub 4. 1 * * 

This decision holds good for all the scapulars approved of 
by the Holy See. The conferring of the scapular, according 
to the last answer of the Sacred Congregation, takes place 
after the form has been pronounced, and the priest holds 
the scapulars in his hand whilst he pronounces the same. 
‘Formulam in casu dicendam esse immediate antequam 
scapularia imponi incipiantur, eaque sacerdote in manibus 
tenente,’ 1 

When there is a confraternity in connection with a 
particular scapular, the very fact of receiving that scapular 
makes the recipient at the same time a member of the said 
confraternity. The faculty to admit into the sodality is 
per se included in the power to confer the scapular. It is, 
however, strictly necessary in order to gain the indulgences, 
that the names of those who receive the scapular should be 
inserted in the register. 8 

The insertion in the register of these names, without a 
special concession to the contrary, is obligatory in the case 
of the scapulars of the Holy Trinity, the Seven Dolours and 
of our Lady of Mount Carmel (27th April, 1887) ; but not for 
the scapular of the Immaculate Conception, or that of the 
Passion, because these scapulars have no sodality attached 
to them. 

With regard to this enrolment the Sacred Congregation 
of Indulgence declares : ‘ Sacerdos debet penes se habere 
privatum regestrum, ut quam primum commode poterit, 
transmittat nomina receptorum ad superiores respectivae 
confraternitatis vicinioris * (26th January, 1871). Too strict 
an interpretation, however, should not be placed on the 
word vicinioris , since it has merely been adopted to facilitate 
the enrolment of members. * Cum liberum sit ea transmitter 
moderatori cujuslibet confraternitatis.’ 4 The associates can 

1 Ap. N. J2. T. t xxiii., 520, teq. a Ap . R. T. Franc, iii., 539, uq . 

* Deer. 16th July, 1887, and 17th July, 1891. 

* S.O.I., June, 1898. 

Digitized by LxOOQle 


gain the attached indulgences and privileges from the day 
on which their names are inscribed in the register. The 
blessing and enrolment can take place everywhere, not only 
in churches and chapels, but also in private houses ; and all 
can be enrolled, even those who have not yet attained 1 the 
use of reason.’ 

Besides the blessing of the scapular and* the enrolment, 
with the insertion of our names in the register, it is necessary, 
if we wish to gain the indulgences, to wear them in the pre- 
scribed manner ; that is to say, care must be taken to have 
one part of the scapular on the breast, the other at the 
back, between the shoulder-blades ; both parts suspended 
from the shoulders by means of the main bands ; but they 
need not be worn next the skin. Neither is it allowable to 
have both parts together, either on the Breast or between 
the shoulder-blades ; 1 nor is it permissible to fasten or attach 
them to any article of clothing, much less, of course, to 
carry them m the pocket. 

The scapular must always be worn, both day and night ; 
and an omission to wear the scapular during any length of 
time, say a whole week, would cause us to lose our claims 
to the privileges for at least that time. Further, we must 
wear all the scapulars in which we have been enrolled. The 
fact that there may be two scapulars instituted in honour of 
the same saint, as, for example, those in honour of our Lady 
of Mount Carmel and the Immaculate Conception ; or have 
the same colour, as is the case in the scapular of Mount 
Carmel and that of the Third Order of St. Francis, would 
make no exception to this rule. 1 We have only to resume the 
wearing of the scapular which was left off for some time in 
order to regain the indulgences. A new blessing and 
enrolment would be necessary only if the scapulars were 
discarded with the intention of wearing them no more. 
* Cum animo illi valedicendi, sive ilia voluntas fuerit 
implicita deponendo scapulare ex contemptu, sive fuerit 
explicita, directe eidem vel ejusdem sodalitati renuntiando.’ * 

1 Deer. Auth. No. 279. 
a 10 Jan. 188(5. Ap . N. R. T. xviii. 608. 

* Maine, iv. 312: 

VOL. X. X 

Digitized by 3QQle 



III. The Blessing and Conferring of the Combined 
Scapulars . — The faculty to bless and confer four scapulars, 
combined, with a short formula, was originally granted to 
the Bedemptorist Fathers, to be used especially during their 
missions . 1 * * Later on the Holy See extended this faculty 
to other priests , 1 to be used even on ordinary occasions 
(extra tempos tnissionum). 

The faculty, however, to bless and confer the scapular of 
Mount Carmel, combined with others, has been abrogated 
by Borne, and this scapular must, for the sake of greater 
honour and devotion (honoris et devotionis causa) be blessed 
and conferred apart from others . 8 This decree, however, 
seems to speak only of the blessing and enrolment. There 
is, therefore, no restriction as to wearing it combined with 
others . 4 It must be remembered that though these 
scapulars can be joined together it must be done in such a 
way that they really remain separate, one from another. 

Men9 est, ut saoerdotes qui utuntur indulto apostolico indicendi 
Christi fideles quinque scapularibus, non beuedicant scapularia 
nisi ea sint distincta, id est vere quinque scapularia sive 
totidem sive duobus tantum funiculis unita, ita ut cujuslibet 
scapu laris pars una ab humeris, alia vero a pectore pendeat, non 
vero unum tantum scapulare, in quo assuantar diversi colons 

So that it will not now do to unite these scapulars 
together in such a way that only their edges remain visible, 
as was formerly done. We satisfy all the requirements 
under this head, however, if the different scapulars are joined 
together by means of short pieces of tape, an inch or two 
in length, to a main band, which goes over the shoulders. 

It would also suffice if the edges alone of each scapular were 
connected with the main strings ; and Beringer would even 
allow us in addition to stitch them together a little towards 
the centre, but so that at least at three corners they remain 
separated. Beringer tells us, too, that the two outside 

1 Pius IX., September 14, 1857. 

1 l.eo XIII., 27th April, 1886. 

- Deer. Ord. Carm. 27th April, 1887. 

4 Constat, ex Deer., S.C.I., 11 Hartii, 1897. 

8 Deer. Monasteriensis dd. 27 Aprilis, 1887. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 


scapulars should be those of the Holy Trinity and the red 
scapular of the Passion, and that they should be arranged 
so that the two prescribed pictures of the last, the red and 
blue cross of the first, remain visible. Finally, it must be 
remembered that in case the scapular of the Passion is 
among those, that are thus joined together, the two 
strings must be of red woollen material , and that when we 
unite several scapulars together, if we depart, from the 
manner of joining just laid down, the blessing and imposi- 
tion of scapulars would become in consequence invalid, and 
we would not gain the indulgences which the wearing of 
these scapulars carry with them, even though our enrolment 
was valid. 

In order to be allowed to bless and confer four scapulars 
together — (1) A special faculty from the Holy See is indis- 
pensable ; 1 (2) We must obtain from the various superiors 
faculties for the respective scapulars of their order. 2 
The blessing and imposition without the special per- 
mission of the Holy See, but with the sanction of the 
superiors of the respective orders, would be valid accord- 
ing to what has been said above, non defecit in sub - 
stantialibus , because all the essentials are contained in the 
short form ; but it would be illicit, as the usual form is 
prescribed without the special permission of the Holy See. 9 
On the other hand, provided only with the special faculty 
from the Holy See, without being duly authorised by the 
superiors of the various orders to confer their scapulars, any 
attempt to bless and enrol in them would be considered 
invalid on the part of the priest thus limited in faculties, 
because, according to the above-mentioned decree, 12th 
September, 1883, the essential permission is wanting. The 
Holy See, when granting the faculty to use the short form, 
always presupposes that permission has been obtained from 
the superiors of the different orders for whose scapulars we 
require faculties ; except where in this special faculty of the 

* Deer. Mon., 27th April, 1887. 

*8.0.1., 12th September, 1883. 

* Cf. Deer. dd. 12th September, 1883, ad 3 m Reaer. Auth. No. 444. 
N. A. T. xix. 364-390. 

Digitized by AjOOQle 



Holy See the permission itself (viz., to confer the scapulars) 
is given expressis verbis . This would be the case with the 
faculties of the Congregatione de Propaganda Fide. The 
words are: ‘Facultas benedicendi et imponendi quinque 
scapularia ac uteudi quoad quatuor ex illis unica forma.' 

The faculty granted by the Holy See to give the four 
scapulars, using only the short form, can be used not only 
when the four scapulars are actually given together, but 
can also be made use of, where only two or three are con- 
ferred, with the omission of the words which have only 
reference to those scapulars which are left out. 

As appears from an Indult of S.C.I. (20th June, 1894), 
the Holy See has graciously approved of all admissions to 
the confraternity of our Lady of Mount Carmel up to the 
20th of June, whatever may be the defects under which 
they labour. 1 According to a recent Rescript of the Saered 
Congregation of Indulgences, dated July 3, 1901, the Holy 
Father has been graciously pleased to condone forgotten or 
neglected registration of members of the confraternity up to 
the date mentioned. Enrolments which have taken place 
after that date must again be notified to a Carmelite 
monastery. 8 

IV. The Sabbatine Privilege of the Scapular of our 
Lady of Mount Carmel. — By this privilege is usually under- 
stood the speedy deliverance from Purgatory of the souls of 
those who have faithfully worn this scapular through life. 
Our Lady herself, according to a tradition, made this 
promise in favour of the members of the Order and those 
associated with them in an apparition said to have been 
vouchsafed to Pope John XXII. This Pope, it is said, made 
known and confirmed this privilege by the Bull Sanctissimo 
uti Calmine (March 3rd, 1322), according to which our 
Blessed Lady speaks as follows : — 4 Et a die, quo isti 
recedunt ab hoc saeculo et properato gradu accelerant ad 
purgatorium, ego mater descendaoi Sabbato post eorum 
obitum et quos in purgatorio invenero, liberabo et ad 
Montem Sanctum vitae aeternae perdu cam.' Many other 

* Ap. N. R . T. xxvi. 482. a Tablet , Sept. U, 190'. 

Digitized by 


Popes (viz., Clement VII., Paul III., Pius V., Gregory XIII., 
Clement X., Innocentius XI., etc.), have defended and 
explained this privilege. The following decree of the 
Inquisition of date January 20th, 1613, given by Paul V., 
lays down the conditions for participation in this 
privilege : — 

* Patribus Carmelitanis permittitur praedicare : quod populus 
Christianus possit pie credere de adjutorio animarum Fratrum 
Sodalitatis B.M.V. De Monto Carm. videlicet B.V. animas 
Fratrum et Confratrum in caritate deeedentium, <jui in vita habi- 
fcum gestaverint, et castitatem pro suo statu coluermt, officiumque 
parvum recitaverint, vel si recitare nesciverint, ecjjesiae jejunia 
observaverint et feria quarta et Sabbato carnibus abstinuerint, 
nisi ubi in iis diebus Nativ. Dorn, festurn incident, suis inter- 
cessionibus continuis suisque suffragiis et meritis, et spcciali 
protectione post eorum transitum, praecipue in die Sabbati (qui 
dies ab Ecclesia eidem B.V. dicatus est) adjuturam. 

It follows from this decree that three conditions are 
therefore required, viz. : — (1) After having validly received 
the scapular and being admitted into the confraternity, we 
must wear a proper scapular and in the usual way ; (2) 
That we observe the holy virtue of chastity according to our 
state of life ; (3) And say the Little Office of our Blessed 
Lady. In the case of those who cannot read, in addition to 
the days of fasting appointed by the Church, Wednesdays 
and Saturdays, unless Christmas should happen to fall on 
one of these days, should be observed as days of abstinence. 
Of these conditions the two first apply to every one and 
admit of no exception. The second condition prescribes 
the practice of the angelic virtue, viz., the observance of 
chastity in the single state, of fidelity in the married. In this 
respect, however, should one fail, he would not forfeit his 
claims to these privileges, but may regain his right to the 
promise by a good confession. It is, however, quite evident, 
that our Blessed Lady would be more disposed to deliver a 
member of Carmel from Pargatory the greater the faith- 
fulness to the practice of this virtue. 1 

The third condition, viz., that one who can read should 
say the Little Office of our Blessed Lady every day, means 

1 Ulrich Treaor. spirituel. 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



that the Noctam proper to the day, together with the Lands 
and the other hoars of the same office, shoald be recited in 
Latin, according to the Homan Breviary. 1 * * 4 * Nisi quis habeat 
proprium ritum a S. Sede approbatum .’ 1 Those who are 
bound to say the Divine Office, or those who recite the 
Office of our Lady according to rule, satisfy thereby this 
obligation. Those who can read are not at liberty to substi - 
tute at will the second part of this condition 1 ; whilst the 
obligation of fasting and abstinence (exclusive of eggs, milk, 
butter, and cheese on Wednesdays and Saturdays) on the 
above-mentioned days is merely imposed to afford an oppor- 
tunity of enjoying the same privileges to those who are 
unable to read.* It should be borne in mind, too, that the 
terms of the other condition cannot be said to be carried 
out, if use is made of a dispensation, such as that granted 
by the Bull Cruciatae , 4 or the ordinary episcopal Lenten 
dispensation ; except in the case where a lawful commutation 
has been obtained . 6 

Another good work can be substituted by a priest, who 
has this special faculty, when one is unable for some reason 
or another (ob justam causam) to say the Little Office or 
observe the fast and abstinence on the ' prescribed days. 
But although this commutation is not necessarily connected 
with the permission to bless, etc., the scapular of Mount 
Carmel, still at present it is usually given with the first 
faculty. lu the use of this concession we must follow its 
tenor strictly. If, for example, it appear from the wording, 
that it is limited to a confessor, as is often the case, it would 
seem that a priest, who is not in possession of the faculties 

1 Deer. A nth. No. 419 S.C.I., 18tb August, 1868. 

9 Deer. dd. 3rd Dec., 1892. 

8 Deor. dd. 3rd Doc., 1892, ad 2 m et 3’"- JV. R. T. xzr. 260. 

4 Julius IL, 1509. 

4 From this answer (Deer. dd. 3rd Dec., 1892, ad 3 ,n ) it seems to appear 

that what has been stated as to the use of a dispensation applies not ouly to the 
abstinenoe on Wednesdays and Saturdays, but also to the days of fasting ap- 
pointed by the Church : * in quacuraqne feria iv. vel in vigiltis al usque diebus 
prohibitis.’ P Petros Mocchegiani is apparently of the same opinion, CoU. Ind., 
n. 1,934: ' Qu&propter dici posse videtur Ecclesiara, dam justis de caus e a 
propriis legibos d is pens* t vel earum rigorein aliquando temperat, nolle in prae- 
fatLB coniitiouibus, quae a Deipara virgine in sodalium favorem refemntur 
appositae, ullam modificationera indnoere, sed eas velle integras permanere.' 

Digitized by L^OOQle 


to hear confessions, could not make use of it, though com- 
mutation, according to St. Liguori, can take place outside 
the confessional. ‘ Quando datur potestas commutandi 
opera praescripta in alia, id non necessario fit in confessions, 
et a confessore, qui audit confitentem : sed potest fieri 
extra, et ab alio idoneo.’ 1 

Still a second privilege in connection with this scapular 
has been granted by our Blessed Lady. In an earlier 
apparition, according to another tradition, the Blessed 
Virgin appeared to St; Simon Stock, General of the 
Carmelites, at a time of trial for the Order. Giving him a 
scapular she added these words, * This will be a privilege 
for you and for all Carmelites, no one dying in this 
scapular will suffer eternal burning.’ 

We cannot dismiss this subject without referring to the 
innumerable indulgences attached to the Blue Scapular of 
the Immaculate Conception. Of these the two following 
deserve mention. 

By the first of these all the associates, who recite six 
1 Our Fathers,’ six ‘ Hail Mary’s,’ and six times ‘ Glory be 
to the Father, 1 in honour of the Most Blessed Trinity, in 
honour of the Immaculate Conception, and for the usual 
intentions of the Church, can gain all the indulgences 
granted to those, who visit the seven Basilicas of Borne, the 
Church of Portiuncula at Assisi, the Church of St. James 
of Compostella, and the Holy Land of Jerusalem, and that 
not only once but each time—toties quoties — without restric- 
tion as to the place where, or mode in which they pray, i.e., 
kneeling or not kneeling:* ‘Servato tamen decreto S.C.I. 
diei 7 Mart., 1678, approbate Inn. XI. cujus initium Delatae 
Saepius.’ No other prayers are required. Nor is it neces- 
sary to go to Confession or Holy Communion in order to 
gain these indulgences, which are equally applicable to the 
souls in Purgatory.* Still though confession is not pre- 
scribed, nevertheless the state of grace is necessary in order 
to gain the indulgences, if applied to the person himself, 
and in all probability if applied to the souls in Purgatory. 4 

1 Lib. vi., Tract iv., n. 15. 3 S.C.I., 14th April, 1856. 

3 S.C.I., 18th September, 1862. 4 Lehmkuhl, ii. 561. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



It is stated * Servato tamen decreto S.C.I. die! 7 Mart-, 
1678/ according to which Innocent XI. declares: ‘ Semel 
antem dumtaxat in die plenariam indnlgentiam in certos 
dies ecclesiam visitantibos concessam, vel aliud pinm opus 
peragentibus, luerifieri It seems that this could only be 
applied and verified in the case of those indulgences, which 
are plenary and granted for the living : * Nam qui pro 

defunctis acquirit indulgentiam, remissions poenarum 
temporal! um lucrum non facit, sed earn in alios transfert. 1 * * 
The authentic 1 summary fully confirms this assertion of 
1 Mendener.’ 1 4 Juxta memoratum decretum indulgentia 
plenaria pro vivis concessa in diem certum, ecclesiam 
locumve visitantibus, non acquiritur nisi semel in die.’ 
Accordingly it would seem to follow that all these indul- 
gences, not only the partial but also the plenary, granted 
.to those who visit those places, can be gained each time 
toties quo ties at least pro defunctis . Moreover, since the 
decree of Innocent XI. granting the plenary indulgence for 
qprtain days , it would appear that all the indulgences, with 
the exception of those which are granted only to those who 
visit the Basilicas at Borne and Compostella on certain 
specified days , can be gained many times on the same day 
by the members of the sodality of the Blue Scapular for 
themselves or for the souls in Purgatory. 4 The second 
privilege applies to a deceased member. It consists in 
granting by a special favour a plenary indulgence to the 
altar on which Holy Mass is offered up for his soul ; when- 
soever and wheresoever it be offered. 5 

The devout wearing of the scapular is for every Catholic, 
if he chooses, a source of abundant grace, and we can ill 
afford to cast aside what has been approved of by the Church ; 
for whilst securing our souls against many dangerous assaults 
in life, it will form the distinguishing mark of all true clients 
of Mary in the heavenly home, whither we are all fast 

1 Lehmkuhl. 

* S.C.I., 26th August, 1882. 

* Deer. Auth. No 374 et Rescript* Auth. Smnmar 57, soil. pag. 577 in not*. 

4 Vide N. T. H. xxir. 414-422 ; itetn Lehmkuhl, II , n. 561. 

* ‘Alt&re privilegiatum.’ Of. Sumra. Ind. a S.C.L, 26th August, 1882, 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 


speeding. But on the other hand, we must take care not 
to put unerring trust in the scapulars, nor look to them as 
infallible means of grace, so as to imagine, as some have 
done, that no matter how remiss we may be in our duty to 
God, Holy Church, and our neighbour, they will certainly 
work out our salvation in the end. 

For true is the saying 4 As you live so shall you die/ and 
many examples, alas, testify to its terrible significance. 
Still, to a truly contrite and determined soul, Mary has never 
failed : much less can we expect her to forsake in life and in 
death, those who in an especial manner have consecrated 
themselves to her and generously and faithfully donned her 
true livery 4 the scapular/ 


Digitized by 

[ 330 ] 


P ROGRESS is a law and a necessity, and it involves 
changes which we welcome, but which wonld have 
filled our forefathers with alarm. It can hardly be disputed 
that the progress of civilization is from East to West, from 
the Old to the New World ; some would even go so far as to 
say that the New World is more Catholic-minded than the 
Old. Is it conceivable that coming centuries will see such 
a radical change of ideas as is involved in New York be- 
coming the throne of the Fisherman ? We are moved to 
ask this question because it was put to the writer in its 
crudest and most startling form not very long ago. The 
interlocutor was a Protestant, and he somewhat bluntly 
asked : ‘ By-the-bye, you are Roman Catholic priest ; is 
it true that the next Pope is to be an American Jesuit, and 
that he will remove the Curia to New York ? 9 

Here was a collocation of ideas enough to stagger the 
senses of orthodox or conservative folk. Of course we 
scouted the notion and attempted to explain that the 
election to the Papal chair was never a foregone conclusion, 
that it was an affair in which we devoutly believed that the 
Holy Spirit had a more than usual share, and we added 
other remarks to the same effect. Our interrogator smiled 
as though he knew better, perhaps he still expects to gi$et 
the successor of the Fisherman clad in modem garb, with 
the genuine American ring, and dating his bulls from 
Neo Eboracum 1 

Yet it mast be conceded that such a change, startling as 
it is, is not inconceivable. We may not always be blessed 
with Pontiffs of the stamp of Leo XIII. ; without a recur- 
rence of the dark periods of the Papacy, we may yet have 
Pontiffs whose ken is not so far-reaching, whose sympathies 
are not so all-embracing as we could desire ; it may well be 
that the New World, through no fault of its own, finds 
itself out of touch with the Spiritual Head of Christendom. 

Digitized by AjOOQI * 


Modern views may in time so predominate that the larger 
number of the members of the Sacred College may hail 
from America, there may spring up a feeling thatam * up-to- 
date ’ Pope, in other words an American Pope, would be an 
advantage. All this is possible, but is it possible that the 
Holy See should be removed from Borne to New York ? 
that the successor of St. Peter should no longer be Bishop 
of Borne but Bishop of New York ? % 

The question really depends for its answer upon another 
much disputed point. By what right is the Bishop of Borne 
the successor of St. Peter? Was it merely because 
St. Peter’s sagacity led him to choose Borne for his see as 
being the future mistress of the world ? or are we to say 
that he was divinely led to do so ? We certainly have no 
New Testament authority for claiming a Divine command 
to St. Peter on the subject, nor even a Divine ratification 
of his choice. And yet if we concede that it was merely a 
choice based on human perspicacity, on what grounds can 
we deny the possibility of New York becoming the see of 
Peter’s successor ? 

This was a question which naturally attracted a good 
deal of attention during the Papal residence at Avignon. 
The Boman people clamoured for the return of the Popes, 
and they urged the prescriptive rights of their city. Yet 
many of these Pontiffs would have been glad to be able to 
call Avignon the Papal see had it been possible. The truth 
is that they never seemed to conceive of such a change as 
possible. The idea that Borne was divinely, and therefore 
inalienably, chosen as the see of the Fisherman and his 
successors, appears repeatedly in Papal documents. Thus 
Pope St. Gelasius, Ep. xi. ad Anastasium, says: — ‘ We must 
agree with the prelate of that see [Borne] since even the 
Divinity itself wished him to have pre-eminence over all 
priests.’ Again, Nicolas I., Ep. viii. ad Michaelem Impera- 
torem, declares that ‘ the privileges of this see are perpetual, 
they are divinely rooted and planted, they may be assailed, 
transferred they cannot be.’ Boniface VIII. says: — ‘The 
inscrutable depth of Divine Providence has placed the 
Boman Church over all Churches by an unchangeable 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



arrangement.' 1 2 * While the Vatican Council says: — ‘We 
declare that the Boman Church, by the Lord’s enactment, 
holds the i^imacy of ordinary power over all others.’ * The 
reigning Pontiff, too, goes still further when he says : — 
‘Not without a special inspiration from God did Blessed 
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, direct his steps to that 
metropolis of the idolatrous world.’ * 

Similarly Innocent III. declares that it was a Divine 
revelation which led St. Peter to transfer his see from 
Antioch to Borne. 4 The beautiful and well-known tradition 
referred to by St. Ambrose — Sermo contra Auxentium — 
might give us a hint as to the occasion of this revelation. 
He tells us that Christ met St. Peter fleeing from Borne, 
the Apostle asked Him : 4 Lord, whither goest Thou V 
‘ Venio iterum crucifigi ,’ came the answer; and the Apostle, 
understanding the Master’s meaning, straightway returned 
to Borne. It is evident that if this were the occasion it 
would indicate that the revelation came as a Divine ratifica- 
tion of St. Peter’s own original choice. 

The sentiment is thus everywhere the same, but the 
grounds assigned for it vary. Gelasius, Boniface VIII., 
and Nicolas I. simply declare that it was a Divine act ; 
Innocent III. says that it was not due to St. Peter's initia- 
tive, but that he was led by a Divine revelation to remove 
from Antioch ; while the tradition given us by St. Ambrose 
might imply that the choice was Peter’s, ratified by the 
Divine admonition he received, to go back to Borne and die* 
Hence theologians differ much when discussing the ques- 
tion of the alienability of the primacy of the Church from 
the Boman bishopric. Dominic Soto, O.P. (died 1560), 
maintains that the choice was merely St. Peter’s, and that 
Borne’s rights are thus purely human in origin ; but he 
adds, as though to avoid unpleasant consequences, that 
when once the union between the bishopric of Borne and 
the headship of the Church had been effected, it acquired a 

1 Bull, Sacrosanct at Roma not. 

2 Gonstit. Dogm. : Pastor act tin us, cap. iii. 

a Litt ad Em. Card. Rampolla, 15 Junii, 1887. 

4 Ep. lib. ii., 2* 0. 

Digitized by LjOoqL e 


Divine right. John of St. Thomas^ O.P., declares that this 
nnion is probably of Divine origin, but not certainly so ; 
while Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. (1469-1534), seemingly follow- 
ing out St. Ambrose’s hint, maintains that the reason why 
the Bishop of Rome succeeds to the headship of the Church 
is 1 the appropriation of the Roman Church to the Ponti- 
ficate of Peter, ratified both by the death of Peter [in Rome] 
and by Christ’s command.’ 

Still, when all is said, we have not got beyond the realm 
of tradition and opinion. Have we any grounds a priori , as 
well as a posteriori, for maintaining that, if the world were 
to last ten thousand years longer, it would still see the 
successor of the Fisherman enthroned at Rome ? John of 
St. Thomas, after discussing the origin of the union between 
the bishopric of Rome and the headship of the Christian 
world, says that this union is so complete as to be insepar- 
able ; ie., it would be impossible to witness the sight of a 
bishop ruling in Rome while the head of some other see was 
head of the universal Church. He excepts one case — the 
destruction of Rome itself. ‘ Apart from such a contin- 
gency,’ he says, ‘ I think that no cause could arise which 
could justify, or even render valid, such a separation.’ He 
makes this exception because he thinks it probable that 
Rome will be destroyed at the advent of Antichrist. 

If we were asked which was the most important of the 
notes of the Church we might, of course, answer that none 
was more important than the other, or that each assumed 
an overwhelming importance according to divers points of 
view. There is a point of view from which Apostolicity is 
the most important note — namely, as the guarantee of the 
Church’s oneness with Christ. It constitutes, as scholastics 
would say, the informing principle welding the rest 
together. When, however, we come to examine the note 
of Apostolicity we find that it is composed of two factors, 
one of which may be in its turn regarded as the informing 
principle of the other. Apostolicity may be defined as * a 
property of the Church, by which, through legitimate , public , 
and uninterrupted succession of pastors from the Apostles , 
she continues in identity of doctrine, sacraments, and 

Digitized by ^ ooqLc 



government.’ The words italicised represent the informing 
principle, the guarantee for identity of doctrine. Now, if 
Rome were destroyed, so that the Head of the Church 
could no longer have his see there, it is hard to see how the 
uninterrupted succession of pastors from the Apostles 
could be fairly called 'public.’ Doubtless, for contem- 
poraries, the reason of the break in the material part of 
the note of Apostolicity would be clear enough, but in the 
lapse of years what heartburning would ensue upon this 
question. It is true that this does not constitute an 
absolute bar to the destruction of Rome and tbe consequent 
removal of Peter’s See, but we feel that it would cause a 
difficulty regarding the note of Apostolicity which would 
seem to be alien to the ordinary ways of God’s Providence. 

When we reflect upon the vicissitudes through which 
Rome has passed, when we recall the low ebb to which it 
has sunk, and that not merely morally but physically, it is 
hard to shut our eyes to the clear designs of Providence, 
which willed that the City of the Seven Hills should be 
called and should be ‘ The Eternal City.’ 

One day, perhaps, a son of America’s soil will fill 
Peter’s Chair, but we think it impossible that a successor 
of St. Peter will ever set up his see on America’s soil. 

Hugh Pope, o.p. 

Digitized by 

[ 335 ] 


T HE subject of this article is one of the most interesting 
personalities that Germany has produced during the 
past century. 

It was somewhere about the year 1810 that Adolph 
Kolping was born at Kerpen, near Cologne, where he passed 
the earlier years of his life. His parents were of the peasant 
class, and so steeped in poverty that with every desire to 
educate their son, they were completely unable to provide 
the means necessary for that object, so the lad became 
apprenticed to a shoemaker, much to his own disgust, and 
the grief of his father and mother. 

But with Adolph duty always took a prominent position, 
so he served his time diligently during his apprenticeship, 
on the completion of which he went, according to the 
custom of his class, on a wandering tour from town to town 
gaining’experience and expanding his mind. 

In those days the apprentices were accustomed to live 
with their masters, and as a rule they were none too well 
treated, their food was coarse and frequently insufficient, 
while beyond instruction in their particular handicraft they 
were totally neglected, for there was no one who interested 
himself in their spiritual welfare or their moral progress. 
Their deplorable position appealed very strongly indeed to 
the sympathies of young Kolping, and he devoted much of 
his time to studying deeply the condition of things and 
striving to discover some scheme of amelioration for it, nor 
was his labour in vain. 

Not very long afterwards came the crisis of his life, 
when his dreams of ambition and philanthropy became for 
the first time possible of realization, for some generous 
friends found for him the requisite funds to enable him to 
enter on a systematic course of study, which he pursued 
assiduously under the greatest difficulties, and by making 
the greatest sacrifices. At length he was admitted to the 

Digitized by Le 



priesthood, was duly ordained, and appointed a curate, a 
position which he held for a very brief period at Elberfeldt, 
where he still continued to take an absorbing interest in 
the welfare of the working-classes, and on a quite small 
scale to organize a plan for the improvement of their social 

But it was in Cologne, to which city he was subsequently 
transferred, that his life-work really commenced to bear 
fruit. Here he started his scheme of reformation modestly 
enough with twelve young men, and so successful was his 
initial effort that his gigantic plan of elevating the artizan 
class in every possible respect rapidly developed itself. He 
worked to the attainment of this object with untiring energy, 
ever striving to arouse in the breasts of the mechanics a 
feeling of respect for themselves and to foster in their hearts 
a sense of pardonable pride in their labours. 

Of course Kolping needed many helpers, but, fortunately 
for the success of his self-imposed mission, he possessed in 
perfection the happy knack of discovering the proper men 
required -for the purpose, and whenever he came across any 
such, possessed of the necessary qualifications, they were 
immediately enlisted in the good cause. One of the earliest 
of these was the present Cardinal Gruscha, the Archbishop 
of Vienna. 

From very small beginnings the organization has de- 
veloped to an enormous extent, the tiny acorn has grown 
into a sturdy oak, having its roots in Germany, whilst its 
branches spread all over the civilized world. At the present 
day there is not a single town of any importance in the 
Fatherland which does not boast of its club for the working- 
man, whilst Paris, London, New York, New Orleans, 
Alexandria, Borne, Jerusalem, and other cities too numerous 
to specify, are also similarly provided ; in all there are now 
more than eight hundred branches in existence. 

From time immemorial, from away far back in the 
mediaeval ages, it has been the custom for every apprentice 
who has completed his time of servitude at his trade to have 
what is termed his ‘ Wanderschaft ' tour from town to town 
lasting, at the least, for twelve months, during which period 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



he earns his subsistence at his craft as he journeys from 
place to place. Prior to the establishment of the Gesellen 
Verein, or Association of Workmen, this prelude to the real 
business of life was pursued under many disadvantages. 

•How different at the present time when the association can 
boast of a membership of close on a quarter of a million, 
whilst since its foundation several millions of artizans have 
enjoyed the privileges of these club-houses. No matter 
where the traveller finds himself, all that it is necessary 
for him to do in order to participate in all the advantages 
which his enrolment tonfers is to produce his certificate, 
when he is immediately welcomed into an hospitable home, 
where he is surrounded by friends of his own nationality, is 
supplied with food, and provided with sleeping accommoda- 
tion at the most moderate charges. For instance, a really 
excellent dinner is served at the London branch for nine- 
pence ! 

Nor are these material advantages the only ones obtain- 
able, for the higher aspirations of humanity are also catered 
for, and mental pabulum, in the form of instruction in 
science and art, is given, whilst literature and amusements 
are furnished on a lavish scale. Thus, on Sunday evenings 
music, glee-singing, lectures, dancing and private theatricals 
combine to make the evening one of wholesome recreation 
and intellectual enjoyment, during which the members 
smoke their pipes or cigars and imbibe the light lager beer 
of their homeland. Spirits in any form are not permitted 
on the premises. All these, together with many other 
advantages, such as the use of a swimming bath, a gymna- 
sium, and a well-stocked library, plentifully supplied with 
current periodical literature, are procurable by the members 
for the extremely moderate subscription of one shilling per 

A priest invariably holds the position of president, an 
office which is certainly no sinecure as, in addition to the 
religious services he conducts, he gives lectures, imparts 
instruction, preserves order, joins in all the schemes for 
recreation, and is responsible for the homogeneous working 
of the whole concern. Under him there exists a committee, 
vol. x. r 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



elected by the members, any of whom who marry are forth- 
with ejected, although, as a general rule, they become 
honorary members, and enjoy all the privileges. They 
have the right of admission to all the meetings on the^ 
same footing as an ordinary member, but cannot vote, 
although their advice is at all times treated with respectfjil 

Active members who may die are buried at the cost of 
the association, whilst all other members who are in the 
neighbourhood at the time are expected to attend the 

In connection with every branch there is a Bick club 
which provides doctors and medicine free of charge, tod 
which further pays over a weekly sum of money, varying 
according to the circumstances of each particular case, to 
any member who from illness becomes incapacitated for 

One very pleasing feature of the social gatherings is the 
frequent presence at them of old members, accompanied 
by their wives and children, who are always cordially 
welcomed by their younger brethren of the Gesellen 

In proof, if any such were needed, of the importance of 
this institution let it be stated that the German Emperor 
takes a very great interest in its progress,, fully realizing 
the illimitable power for good which such an association 
exercises over the rising generation, and he views the 
scheme as a gigantic breakwater opposed to the encroach- 
ing waves of socialism, anarchy, and infidelity. 

Were half the power that fills the world with terror, 

Were half the wealth lavished on camps and courts, 
Given to redeem the human mind from error, 

There were no need for arsenals or forts ! 

Before the death of Father Kolping, which occurred in 
the year 1856, he had the supreme gratification of witness- 
ing the wonderful development which his great work had 
attained, whilst, in recognition of his remarkable services 
to humanity, he was, as a special honour and privilege, 

Digitized by 



accorded burial inside his own church at Cologne ; and to 
the present time it remains a very pretty custom that every 
Geselle who passes through that city pays a pilgrimage to 
the tomb of the founder of the Gesellen Yerein. 

C. H. Mountague-Clarke. 


O NE of Cardinal Newman’s biographers tells us of the 
magnetic personality of the great convert, and certainly, 
on happier expression could be found to describe the extra- 
ordinary power of fascination which some men seem to 
possess. I remember feeling the influence of the same 
power with reference to the first Napoleon and some of 
the celebrated characters who figured in the first French 
revolution. More recently in Irish history there arose a 
constellation of interesting and talented young men who 
possess the same power. I refer to the party of Young 
Irelanders who surrounded Thomas Davis. Literature 
concerning these magnetic personalities will make a deep 
impression on the mind, especially in the case of plastic 
and enthusiastic natures. The ardent enthusiast who is 
carried away by the glory of Napoleon and his satellites 
will be so captivated by his subject that he will appreciate 
no other kind of greatness. Literary eminence, civic virtue, 
the splendour of the saints will sink into insignificance by 
the side of such martial glory, and there will arise in his 
mind the desire to imitate the hero of his choice. In like 
manner the Irish youth of seventeen who follows with rapt 
interest the history of the Young Irelanders, will feel that 
patriotism is the grandest of all virtues, and will sigh for, 
and dream of a life devoted as he will think to the pure and 
noble ideals for which Davis and his ardent friends toiled. 
The old saying — ‘ the insect takes the colour of the leaf it 
feeds upon ’ — is never so applicable as in the case of this 
kind of literature, and hence it is most important that with 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



impressionable dispositions, magnetic personalities of the 
right description should be put before them. The young 
idolater will then bow the knee to the true hero and will be 
impelled to devote his life towards the pursuit of really 
noble ideals. Instead of Napoleon give him St Ignatius ; 
instead of Davis give him Newman, and his life may be 
elevated to an altogether higher plane. 

The lives of the saints made St. Ignatius a saint, and 
no doubt there have been many, very many called away 
from the world to a life of religion by the perusal of 
St. Ignatius’ own life. Almost in our own day, we have 
the plainest evidence of the influence Cardinal Newman’s 
career has had in drawing so many into the Catholic 
Church. Fascinating characters have been produced by the 
Church at all times. I have referred to St. Ignatius, and in 
our day to Cardinal Newman. I will call the reader’s 
attention to a third, who was a contemporary of Newman — 
Lacordaire — and I venture to assert that notwithstanding 
the great beauty of Newman’s character, many will find 
themselves more captivated by that of Lacordaire. For my 
own part, I will say that in the history of the Church, if we 
except the great Hildebrand and St. Augustine, I find no 
nobler, no more interesting, no more chivalrous personality 
than the great Frenchman. Lacordaire is not a saint, that 
is, he will never find a place in the calendar, but never- 
theless, his life is more inspiring, more admirably suggestive, 
as it is more interesting than the lives of many saints. A 
saint is one in whom the natural is shadowed by and lost in 
the supernatural, but Lacordaire, though a man of exalted 
piety, appears in all the freshness of his natural character. 
We see him falling into errors, we see in him many of those 
frailties which are so rarely to be met with in those who 
have attained heroic sanctity ; but these little shortcomings 
only make him stand out before us more vividly. They 
only bring out into bolder relief that nobility of character, 
that elevation of mind, that grandeur of soul, so far removed 
from anything mean or petty, that heroic resolve which 
marked him off from the men of his generation. We see in 
him especially one of the most interesting examples of the 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



action of the Church on the individual character. The 
Church found him, to use his own words, ‘ the child of 
an age which scarcely knows what obedience is, one for 
whom ‘independence had been his couch and his guide,’ 
and she sweetly broke down that rebellious spirit leaving 
him still the bold originality and the fearless disposition 
in which he had been nurtured. She found him, to use 
the language of Montalembert, like one of those ‘ barbarians 
who swooped down on the Roman Empire, the terror of her 
obedient children,’ and she smoothed his roughness, tamed 
his wild nature, and without interfering with the grand 
features of his natural character, ingrafted into it the spirit 
of Christianity. It is the blending of two natures, so to 
speak, that makes Lacordaire so interesting. He was an 
infidel who gloried in independence, and the use of reason. 
He was made a Christian, taught to believe reason must not 
be his sole guide, but much more especially the revelation of 
God. Is his old character gone ? Not in the least. He 
still prides himself in the exercise of reason. Reason and 
revelation he feels must never be opposed to each other ; the 
right use of reason is therefore the use of the noblest faculty 
God has given to man. His spirit of independence made 
him a votary of human liberty. The Church taught him the 
docility and humility of the Christian religion. Is he no 
longer an advocate of liberty? Notin the least. He now 
preaches a higher and nobler liberty, and proclaims the 
Church the liberator of the world of nations as well as of 
individuals. Boldness, originality, independence he pos- 
sessed before his conversion ; the same characteristics he 
possessed after his conversion, only that into all of them was 
ingrafted, as I said, the true Christian spirit, the spirit of 
docility to the Church, of submission to all her authorita- 
tive decrees. He was the barbarian softened, elevated, 
spiritualised ; the connecting link between the untamed 
children of the forests and the humble Christians of the 
civilized world. 

What is the history of this great man ? We cannot go 
through his life in detail, though it is a life strangely simple 
and uneventful, consisting of a few abrupt decisive changes, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



followed by long periods of an unchequered nature. We 
shall confine ourselves to the most salient points. Bom the 
son of a village doctor, brought up by a pious Christian 
mother, he early in youth lost his faith, becoming a prey to 
the infidel spirit of his times. Loss of faith was his only 
sin. His morals were ever pure. As he says before turning 
to God, he was a slave to human gloiy and nothing else. 
And yet, though never a victim of low passion, he could say, 
‘ I am sated without having purchased satiety by experience.’ 
The purity of his life amid the corruption of Paris is an 
evidence of the elevation of his nature, whilst his appre- 
ciation of the world’s enjoyments, without ever experiencing 
them, show the eager-like penetration of his soul. He 
embraced the profession of the law, and was already a 
lawyer at the time of his conversion. Like all the changes 
of his life that seems to have been the work of a moment. 
As he wandered along the streets one day, the light broke in 
on his soul and he determined to be not only a good 
Christian, but also he made up his mind to give up the 
world and become a priest. Entering St. Sulpice, he spent 
the usual preparatory course there, remarkable only for the 
profound queries he would from time to time propose to his 
professors. From bis letters we know how much in earnest 
he was to acquire the true priestly spirit. Writing to a 
friend he says, * I wish to put off this natural life and 
consecrate myself to the service of Him who can never be 
either jealous, ungrateful, or base.' 

His public life commenced in 1830 with his connection 
with the celebrated paper L' Avenir. De Lammenais, who 
was at that time regarded as the great luminary of the 
Modern Church, who had been caressed by the Pope and 
styled by an admiring generation the ‘ Last of the Fathers,' 
was the originator of the famous journal. A few other 
priests and laymen co-operated, but soon three stood forth 
prominently from the rest. These were De Lammenais, 
Lacordaire, and the youth of twenty, Count de Montalem- 
bert. De Lammenais was tbe great master to whom the 
others looked up, but Montalembert tells us of Lacordaire 
that though he reverenced De Lammenais, he was by no 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



means his pupil, and secondly that very soon the great writer 
was equalled, if not eclipsed, by his young follower. 

We have an interesting portrait of Lacordaire as he was 
in 1830 from the pen of Montalembert. The two friends, 
both in the bloom of youth, met in the office of L' Avenir, 
and each was charmed with the other. ‘ I love him as if he 
were a plebeian,’ writes Lacordaire. 

I saw them both, De Lammenais and Lacordaire, for the first 
time [says Montalembert] ; dazzled and mastered by tho one I felt 
myself more gently and naturally drawn towards the other. He 
appeared to me bewitching and terrible, the type of enthusiasm in 
the cause of good. I saw in him a chosen one, predestined to all 
that youth most adores and covets — genius and glory. On the 
morrow of our first meeting he took me to hear his Mass, and we 
already loved each other as people are wont to love in the pure 
and generous outpourings of youth. 

Lacordaire was then twenty-eight, and from his friend’s 
portrait we can see that his intellectual and moral gifts were 
accompanied by all the outward graces of person. We are 
told of his ‘ tali slight frame, with its lofty elegance, 
subdued by a modesty noticeable through his whole person,’ 
of his • fine features and beautifully chiselled forehead,* 
of the 1 royal sit of the head,’ so expressive of his noble 
character, of his 1 dark flashing eye,* which bespoke treasures 
of anger and tenderness, and seemed to be ever on the look- 
out for enemies to overthrow and hearts to conquer and win ; 
of his voice in which firmness and sweetness were combined 
and which could assume so well that ‘ despairing ring,’ which 
his biographer years after his death could not remember 
without an inward shudder. It is little wonder that 
Montalembert would speak of such a man as predestined to 
genius and glory, for surely few were more richly dowered 
with those gifts which must shine forth among men and 
win their admiration. Moral graces, intellectual graces, 
and physical graces were all combined in this young man. 

Needless to say that a journal supported by such men 
as De Lammenais, Lacordaire and Montalembert at once 
became celebrated. Few publications of its kind surpassed, 
perhaps equalled it in ability. It grew to be a power in the 
land — but a power of doubtful utility in the cause of religion* 

Digitized by 



To much fearless championing of the cause of the Church it 
joined extreme and at times extravagant opinions no less 
hostile to the government than annoying to the ecclesiastical 
authorities. In consequence of his fiery articles Lacordaire 
was often summoned before the civil tribunal, and there 
astonished his judges by the different roles in which he 
appeared before them. Sometimes coming forth as a 
priest to answer an accusation ; sometimes donning the 
lawyer’s gown and defending himself with that noble 
eloquence which he even then began to manifest. These 
were times when priests were a proscribed class, when 
infidels crowded the courts to gloat over the discomfiture 
of some clerical delinquent. Yet, at times, they could not 
withhold their admiration for Lacordaire. 1 Ministers of a 
foreign power ’ was the taunt levelled by a crown lawyer 
one day at Lacordaire and his brother priests. 4 We are tbe 
ministers of one,’ exclaimed Lacordaire, who is a ‘ foreigner 
nowhere — of God.* The hostile audience burst into a thunder 
of applause. 4 Your name, young priest,’ they cried, 1 you are 
a fine fellow.* The rough trials which Lacordaire then 
encountered were a splendid training for his future work. 
They gave him nerve and courage and self-confidence. 4 1 
am convinced,’ he says after them, 4 that the Roman Senate 
would not unnerve me.’ 

Having attacked, in language of extraordinary vehemence, 
the crown for appointing three bishops in virtue of the Con- 
cordat, he was prosecuted, and with him De Lammenais. 
He acted as his own counsel, and defended himself with 
great intrepidity. So far from abating the vigour of his 
denunciation he did not hesitate to call the members of the 
government 4 oppressors.’ 4 You do not bind my hands,’ he 
says, 4 but you shackle my thought, you do not allow me to 
teach— me, to whom it was said docete. The seal of your laws 
is on my lips ; when will it be broken ? I consequently call you 
oppressors, and I dread bishops from your hands.’ He was 
acquitted, and was hailed by his young friend Montalembert 
as the orator of the future. On another occasion he was 
forced to appear before a more important tribunal. This 
time his fellow delinquent was not De Lammenais but 

Digitized by 



Montalemberfc, and the latter being a peer of France, could 
be judged only by the House of Peers. As the case for 
both was one and the same, Lacordaire was obliged to 
defend himself before the same august assembly. He again 
acted as his own counsel, and so delighted his audience by 
his lofty eloquence and the tactful manner in which he 
accommodated himself to his new surroundings, that he left 
behind him an impression that long survived in the memory of 
his bearers. Many years afterwards, when Montalembert took 
his seat among his judges, he heard them speak with delight 
of the young priest who fascinated them by his enchanting 
eloquence. Montalembert himself must not have impressed 
them less. * Your occupation ? * queried the official. 4 School- 
master and Peer of France ’ was the reply. 

I have said that the brilliant pages of L' Avenir not only 
incurred the hostility of the government, but likewise 
awakened the suspicion of the ecclesiastical authorities. 
Lacordaire afterwards admitted the reason for these suspi- 
cions, and spoke with regret not only of the extravagant 
opinions put forward at times but also of the 4 absolute logic * 
with which they were supported ’ * the logic which loses if 
it does not dishonour every cause.’ Hence with the celebrity 
which L' Avenir brought Lacordaire it brought him also the 
reputation of a rash young enthusiast, whose mind was 
revolving dangerous ideas and whose pen might at any time 
give those ideas a most powerful influence for evil. He was 
therefore rendered a suspect, and we may say now with 
good reason. We know that one of the famous three, the 
greatest at that time, the oldest, the one whose judgment was 
most matured, afterwards fell away hopelessly from the 
Church. Why may not Lacordaire experience the same sad 
fate ? He seemed more an enthusiast, more the prey to an 
exuberant imagination, more the victim of his ideas than 
De Lammenais. If his theories happened to clash with 
revealed troth, who could tell what youthful pride and 
an unbalanced judgment would lead to ? Lacordaire was 
indeed cruelly wronged in these suspicions, but he was not, as 
I said, the object of rash judgments. As subsequent events 
showed there never was a soul so little in danger of lapsing 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



from orthodoxy as Lacordaire's. His outward deportment, 
his lofty carriage, and fearless speech, strangely concealed a 
soul folly grounded in humility. 4 I would rather, ’ he says, 

4 throw myself into the sea with a millstone around my 
neck, than entertain hopes, ideas, or support even good 
works outside the Church * ; and referring to De Lammenais’ 
fall, he writes : — 4 He has blasphemed Borne in her misfor- 
tune : it is the crime of Ham, the crime which has, next to 
Deicide, been visited with the most palpable and lasting 
punishment. Woe to him who troubles the Church.’ The 
man who uttered such language could not become a heretic, 
for heresy is always the offspring of pride, and pride was 
never uppermost in the mind of Lacordaire. On the'con- 
trary he possessed, as I said, that humility, that spirit of 
docility to the Church, which is always the sure guarantee 
of the Divine illumination. To use his own incomparable 
language : 4 The light breaks in on him who submits as on 
one who opens his eyes.’ Submission was his safety. 

As yet, however, there was no need of submission. The 
doctrines of V Avenir were only criticised and suspected. 
But matters were soon brought to a crisis. Lacordaire 
suggested that the points in doubt should be at once submitted 
to the judgment of the Holy See. In company with 
De Lammenais and Montalembert he set out for Borne. - 
When he arrived he saw at once the true state of affairs. 
They were received kindly, but in such a way as to leave no 
doubt that Borne shared in the suspicions of the French 
authorities. De Lammenais chafed with pride. A long 
time elapsed before* the doubtful doctrines came under 
examination. The spirit of rebellion was growing in 
De Lammenais ; he was already communicating with the 
secret enemies of the Holy See. Lacordaire, on the other 
hand, was undergoing quite an opposite process. For- 
getting the disputes of L' Avenir or, at least, prepared to 
submit on every point to the Holy See, he wandered about 
the churches and sacred sites of Borne, his heart glowing 
with a holy enthusiasm, his imagination filled with the 
glories of the past, and the loftiest and purest ambition — 
if ambition we may call it — kindling in his breast. He was 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



not to trouble the Holy See. As Montalembert says : — 
* During his residence at Borne a great peace and light had 
arisen in his soul.' He saw in the past, which the memorials 
of Borne brought to his recollection, glories in comparison 
with which all the political and social triumphs of the 
present were as nothing. He saw the folly of allowing 
himself to be tossed about in the 1 whirlwind of politics.’ He 
saw the true position of the Church, the divinely appointed 
guardian and teacher of the world. He saw the magnificent 
and, at the same time, arduous task of the Holy See ; he 
saw its difficulties, its world- wide duties, its never-ending 
troubles. He sympathised with it and determined that 
never would he trouble it. Henceforth would he withdraw 
himself from the turmoil of contentious questions, and essay 
to imitate those grand and obedient and sainted heroes who 
adorned the Church at all times and all places * from the 
sands of Thebaid to the extremities of Ireland, from the 
fragrant isles of Provence to the cold plains of Poland and 
Bussia'.’ Henceforth he would seek to follow in the foot- 
steps of the ‘ patriarchs of those numerous families which 
had filled deserts, forests, camps, even to the chair of 
St. Peter, with their heroic virtues.’ A great light bad, 
indeed, arisen within his soul, just as the gathering darkness 
was falling on the soul of his master. Montalembert calls 
our attention to the marked difference between the two 
priests in their attitude towards the Holy See : — 

The 1 Last of the Fathers, * the renowned and eloquent doctor 
the aged priest, crowned with the admiration of the Catholic 
world for the last twenty years was struggling against his duty as 
a Catholic and a priest. The faith of the Catholic priest had in 
the other immediately dispelled all the fumes of pride, had 
vanquished all the seductions, all the waywardness of talent, all 
the intoxication of conflict. The youth understood all, the man of 
genius wanted to ignore everything. Prudence, clear-sightedness, 
dignity, and good faith were all on the side of the disciple. 

And he goes on to tell us of the ‘ solemn and pathetic 
warnings ’ addressed by the disciple to the cherished 
master. ‘I see him,’ he says, ‘ wandering the live-long- day 
among ruined monuments, stopping as though lost in 
admiration at all the sublime sites which Borne offers, then 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



returning at evening to our common home to inculcate on 
De Lammenais* reserve, resignation, and submission.* It 
is little wonder that many years later the sight of Lacordaire 
in the white Dominican habit would elicit from the fallen 
priest that acknowledgment so full of remorse and apparent 
regret — 4 that man weighs on me like a mountain.’ At last 
when warnings and appeals were in vain Lacordaire abruptly 
quitted Rome, leaving his two companions behind. He 
endeavoured to rescue Montalembert from his dangerous 
associate, but in vain. Though he wrote in the most earnest 
manner, though he warned him that if De Lammenais 
carried out his plan 4 there is no language sad enough to tell 
what will happen.* Montalembert would not as yet be 
delivered from that fatal fascination which De Lammnaise 
seemed to possess. 

Lacordaire’s words of warning with reference to 
De Lammenais were prophetic. The latter was about to 
carry out his plan, and reduce himself to a state too sad to 
be described. Without awaiting the decision of the Holy 
See he left Rome with the intention of continuing L' Avenir. 
Lacordaire in the meantime had gone to Germany, and 
there the three friends were thrown together once more. 
There, too, the decree of the Holy See condemning their 
doctrines overtook them. They instantly submitted ; 
Lacordaire and Montalembert sincerely, De Lammenais 
only apparently, as subsequent events clearly showed. 

4 There are defeats,* said Lacordaire, quoting from Montaigne, 
4 more glorious than victories.* 

De Lammenais set out for his home amid the solitudes 
of Brittany, followed by a group of ardent disciples. 
Lacordaire, who was delighted at his submission, and 
thought it sincere, soon rejoined him. He was sincerely 
attached to him, whom he regarded as his master. To be 
the disciple of De Lammenais would be the greatest hap- 
piness of his life ; but alas ! soon the pure, humble soul of 
Lacordaire saw that his place no longer could be by the side 
of the loved guide. In Rome a great light had arisen in his 
soul. Amid the woods of Brittany, where his heart was ever 
raised to God by the beauties of nature which surrounded 

Digitized by 



him, it was made clear to him that he must sever his 
connection with De Lammenais. The separation was 
acutely painful. De Lammenais had at once dazzled his 
intellect and won his heart. He was distracted by the , 
* agonies of conscience battling against genius.’ But at 
last conscience triumphed, and he left for ever the great and 
unfortunate man whom he loved so much and clung to with 
too lasting a fidelity. Before leaving he penned a beautiful 
letter to De Lammenais, and in it, as in a mirror, we see the 
grand loving nature of Lacordaire, so capable of the deepest 
attachment. From it, too, we can gather some idea of the 
really great qualities of De Lammenais, who could inspire 
a soul such as Lacordaire’s with such sentiments as he 
gives expression to : — 

You will never know but in heaven the sufferings I have 
undergone for the last year from the simple fear of giving you 
pain. In all my doubts, in all my perplexities, I have had you 
alone in view, and however bitter may one day bo my existence, 
nothing will ever equal the grief which I feel on the present 
occasion. Wherever I may bo you will ever have proofs of my 
respect and attachment for you which I shall ever cherish, and I 
beg of you to accept the expression of them from a broken heart. 

What a noble and affectionate heart here unbosoms 
itself? Thrice happy indeed should we deem De Lammenais 
in such a disciple. Yet Montalembert tells us that De 
Lammenais never loved Lacordaire. We ought not to 
wonder at this, for Lacordaire was a perpetual thorn in his 
side, a constant check on his ever rising pride, a never- 
ceasing warning to him to bow down his rebellious nature ; 
Lacordaire was to him what the priest is to the libertine, 
who is determined to give himself to the indulgence of his 
passions, and his company, sweet as it otherwise might be, 
was only growing more and more hateful. In reading of 
the relations between the two great men we are forced to 
give our tenderest sympathy to Lacordaire, and to lament 
that for a moment he should be enslaved by the proud and 
sullen nature of De Lammenais, who, with all his genius, 
was a most unamiable character. Hear how the loving 
disciple must speak of him : — 

When we were together [writes Lacordaire] and I fancied I 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



discovered in him resignation, sentiments devoid of pride and 
passion, I cannot express what I felt. But these moments were 
few, indeed, and all that I can call to mind is stamped with a 
character of wilfulness and blindness such as dries up pity. 

Lacordaire’s departure was followed by that of most 
of the little group who surrounded De Lammenais in his 
solitary Breton home. Montalembert was the last left, and 
he clung to the great man with an extraordinary tenacity. 
Lacordaire resolved to do all in his power to save his young 
friend. He sent him letter after letter in which he appealed, 
exhorted, advised, argued. De* Lammenais sought to 
counteract his efforts, so that often the same post would 
bring to Montalembert letters from his two friends. 
Lacordaire, however, was the more earnest in his endea- 
vours. When correspondence failed he set out in search of 
his friend and found him, to quote Montalembert’s own 
words, ‘ at the tomb of St. Elizabeth.’ At first his advances 
were met with coldness ; Montalembert was offended at the 
abrupt and public secession of Lacordaire, but at length he 
gave way, not, however, till he had made the generous heart 
of his true friend bleed. Soon after De Lammenais openly 
left the Church, and published the notorious work, Paroles 
&'un Croyant. Lacordaire felt himself bound to reply, and 
did so in a work of great brilliancy. 

My conscience is at ease [ho wrote], it breathes at last. No 
thought of ambition or pride was ever for an instant the spring of 
my conduct on that occasion. My policy consisted solely in my 
honest submission. If everything turned out as I foresaw, I 
only foresaw it by setting aside my own opinion. 

To repeat his words he triumphed simply because ‘ the 
light breaks in on him who submits as on one who opens 
his eyes.* Speaking of the fallen man he says : * May we 
all forgive each other the errors of our youth, and pray 
together for him who caused them by the superabundance 
of an imagination too lovely to be deplored.’ 

Here one chapter, and that the stormiest, perhaps, of the 
life of Lacordaire, closes. Years of enthusiasm, of hope, 
of struggle, of agony, had ended in sorrow and failure : 
notoriety rather than fame was the harvest which he 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



reaped. He wished for ever to leave the scene of his 
labours and commence life anew in a strange land ; he was 
about to accept the position of Vicar-General in the diocese 
of New York. This was not to be, however. His life was 
not to go on from failure to oblivion. The past, sad as 
seemed its memories and results, was to be the foundation 
of his future success ; the past was to be in a sense essential 
to that success. The Archbishop of Paris kindly offered 
him the position he held as chaplain to one of the Parisian 
convents before his connection with De Lammenais. He 
accepted it, and lived for three years in study and retire- 
ment. For a moment we see him coming forth with the 
charity of the true priest to take his place by the side of the 
plague-stricken people during the great cholera outbreak of 
1831. The hostility to the clergy which then prevailed 
rendered it necessary for him to disguise himself in civilian’s 
dress. As he moved about among the patients one day a 
poor man, whose wife was stricken by the disease, mistaking 
him for one of the attendants, went up to him, and asked 
him in a whisper, if it was possible to call a priest. * I am 
one/ replied Lacordaire, and he bent down and ministered 
to the dying woman. 

These three years in Paris were the happiest of his life. 
Here he displayed a new and unexpected feature of his 
character — his love of solitude. He loved his new and 
solitary life, he clung to it. Not even for a chair in the 
University of Louvain, not even for the position of editor 
of the Univers , both of which were offered to him, would 
he part with it. His mother came to live with him and 
brighten his lonely life, and when she died he found another, 
who more than took her place, the celebrated Madame 
Swetchine, who will ever be associated with the name of 
Lacordaire. Introduced to her soon after his secession 
from De Lammenais, he found in her all the love of a 
mother, and the prudence of an enlightened guide. 4 Her 
soul was to mine/ he says, 4 what the shore is to the plank 
shattered by the waves. I never met anyone in whom such 
breadth and boldness of thought were allied to such firm 
faith/ She, on her part, found in Lacordaire her chosen 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



son, with whose sorrows she sympathised, whose anxieties 
she shared, and whose triumphs afforded her the moBt 
exquisite pleasure of her life. For twenty- five years, this 
noble Russian lady, who had abandoned her country and 
her religion for the true faith, and whose house was the 
home of all that was brilliant in the Catholic circles of 
Paris, was the dearest of all Lacordaire’s friends. 

So enchanted was Lacordaire with the pleasures of 
solitude, that there was danger he would never allow 
himself to be induced away from them. He prayed and 
studied and thought during those three years, and he was 
happy. If he was admirable in the young enthusiasm with 
which he embarked in what he thought was the cause of 
the Church and liberty, he is more admirable now in the 
life truly humble and holy, which he lived in this obscure 
street where he dwell. ‘I see him,* says Montalembert, 

4 growing daily in calmness and recollection, in prayer, 
study, charity, solitude, in a grave, simple, unnoticed life 
truly hidden in God. That is the spot where he matured 
his genius, and whence darted that eagle, whose flight has 
so far outdone that of all his rivals.’ No language could be 
more earnest than that in which he speaks of the happiness 
of his new life. 4 Happy the man who is born and dies 
under the same roof,’ and not content with the seclusion of 
Paris, he Bighs for some obscure country parish where he 
could live 4 the world forgetting by the world forgot.’ 4 1 
wish,’ he writes : — 

To bury myself in the' depths of the country, to live only for 
a small flock, and to seek my joy in God and the fields. People 
will see clearly whether I am an ambitious man. Farewell, great 
labours, farewell renown, and great men. I have learnt the 
vanity of all this, and my only desire is to lead a good and 
obscure life. Some day when Montalembert shall have grown 
grey in the midst of ingratitude and celebrity, he will come and 
contemplate on my brow the remains of a youth passed together. 
We will shed tears together by the presbytery hearth ; he will do 
me justice before we both die. 

And he continues : — 

Born in ordinary times I shall go my way through the world 
among the things which do not live in the memory of man. I 
shall endeavour to be good, simple, pious, looking forward to the 

Digitized by t^ooQle 



future with disinterested confidence, since I shall not see it, 
labouring for those who perhaps will see it, and not murmur- 
ing against Providence, who might without injustice heap more 
evils on a life so devoid of merit. 

‘ Fame is as the shadow fleeing from him who pursues 
it, and pursuing him who flees from it,’ the proverb tells us. 
When Lacordaire was writing thus he was on the eve of 
his triumph, he who sighed for the woods and the fields, 
and an unknown life was about to blaze forth into glory 
and celebrity, which, as long as the Catholic Church lasts, 
‘will live in the memory of man.’ Hitherto Lacordaire, 
though conscious of his ability as a speaker, never dreamt 
that he possessed the special powers of eloquence, which he 
afterwards manifested. During those three years of retire- 
ment in Paris he indeed speaks of his desire to preach, but, 
strange to say, on the first occasion, when he did really 
make an effort to succeed he utterly failed. Montalembert 
was among the audience, and when the aermon was over, 
he said to a friend who accompanied him, ‘ he is a talented 
man, but will never make a preacher.’ Lacordaire himself 
was of the same opinion. ‘ I have nothing,’ he says, ‘ that 
goes to make up a preacher in the full force of the word.’ 
Still he went on preaching, not in the public churches, but 
to the students of the College Stanislaus. Here he found 
himself more in his element so to speak. After the first 
month he found the audience increasing considerably, ' it is 
a growing plant,’ he writes. His original manner, and the 
novelty of the subjects, which he introduced, seemed to 
have found an appreciative audience. Yet this very 
originality and novelty rendered him suspected; He was 
accused of never mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in 
his conferences. To use his own words he was looked on 
as a ‘ hair-brained republican, an incorrigible offender, and 
a thousand other delicate things of the same sort.’ At last 
suspicion became so strong that he was compelled to 
suspend his conferences altogether. Submission was painful, 
but again he conquered himself. It was his last trial. 
Providence was now to reward him for his many sub- 
missions. Ozanam was among those who had heard the 

VOL. x. z 

Digitized by 




conferences at the College Stanislaos. He felt that these 
were the very subjects suited to the needs of the present 
generation, and . that Lacordaire was the preacher, and the 
only preacher, who could reach the heart of the infidel 
generation. The old subjects and the old manner had lost 
its power; and the orthodox method of preaching had sadly 
left the Parisian churches empty. At the head of a body 
of students Ozanam sought the Archbishop, and petitioned 
him to appoint Lacordaire to the pulpit of Ndtre Dame for 
the approaching Lent. The Archbishop consented, though 
with reluctance. Lacordaire’s first appearance in the 
pulpit, which he has made famous, was memorable* 
Ozanam and his companions surrounded the pulpit. There 
sat Madame Swetchine, trembling with anxiety as to the 
fate of her chosen son. The Archbishop was also present. 
Lacordaire ascended the pulpit, surveyed his audience, 
which even on the first occasion was large, trembled for 
a moment, heaved his chest, burst forth into a torrent 
of enchanting eloquence, and had his audience rapt in 
breathless interest at his feet. The delight of Ozanam and 
the Archbishop was unbounded, while Madame Swetchine 
felt the triumph as if it were her own. The success of the 
first conference was but the prelude to what was to follow. 
Time after time did the immense crowd fill every comer 
of the great cathedral, and listen with rapt attention to 
language such as they never heard before. Infidels came 
and were lost in wonderment, and many who were led 
thither by curiosity knelt before the altar to shed tears of 
heartfelt repentance. Everything about the preacher was 
captivating — his appearance, his manner, his voice, his 
delivery, but, above all, the novelty of his subjects. He 
met the infidel on his own ground. He brought the light 
of reason to bear on the troths of faith, and showed in 
glowing colours the glorious harmony between religion and 
reason. His eloquence was matchless. Poetry, passion, 
and profound learning were all combined in that ‘impetuous 
crystal stream, surging and irresistible as an Alpine torrent.’ 

Abl [writes Montalembert] I confidently call around that great 
and cherished memory all those whom I once saw swelling those 

Digitized by 



serried ranks, quivering with emotion around the pulpit of N6tre 
Dame. Let them speak and tell all the blameless happiness, the 
holy fire, the invincible trust, the Christian loftiness they once 
owed to the empire of that voice for ever hushed I Where is the 
man from among his former hearers who would to-day enter sad 
and solitary the silent precincts of Notre Dame, stop before that 
pulpit, for ever widowed of its most illustrious occupant, without 
hearing within him the echo of that peerless voice, without seeing 
with the eyes of his youth those spacious aisles again filled with 
that moved and • quivering crowd slaking their thirst at the 
swelling fountains of enthusiasm and faith. 

It is little wonder that at the close of that incomparable 
series of conferences the Archbishop arose and publicly 
hailed the great preacher as the new prophet. He had 
triumphed. 1 Every man/ to use his own words, * has his 
day if only he will wait.’ He did wait, and was rewarded. 
De Lammenais’ was fallen, powerless, fast sinking into 
oblivion, and the humble disciple who knew how to trample 
on pride was now at the zenith of the purest fame, his name 
spoken of with love by millions the world over. 

In reading these Notre Dame conferences we hardly know 
what to admire in them most. Now, in their written form, 
without the advantages of that splendid delivery of which 
Lacordaire was a master, we are forced to say they are the 
grandest of their kind ever written. But what will be our 
astonishment when we learn that those masterpieces of 
human eloquence, no less remarkable for their beauty of 
imagery, their close sequence of ideas, than for their pro- 
fundity of thought, were extempore discourses. Lacordaire 
never wrote his sermons, and the written form in which 
they now are is due to the reporter who sat by the pulpit. 
Surely we can say there never was a speaker who surpassed, 
perhaps equalled, Lacordaire in this peculiar line. Among 
preachers Montalembert finds his superior in Bossuet alone, 
but it is difficult to see how an apt comparison can be insti- 
tuted between him and Bossuet, the style and subjects of 
the two great orators being altogether so different. I have 
little hesitation in saying that the reader will find among 
the many great preachers whom the Church has produced 
none so original and distinctive, none so creative, none so 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



brilliant and profound at the same time, none whose works 
will be read with Buch absorbing interest. Lacordaire was 
the father of a new species of eloquence ; he owned no pre- 
decessor for his master, and hence it is idle to compare him 
to the great monarchs of the pulpit in times past. Bat 
though imitating none, none has been so endlessly and 
servilely copied. Even Cardinal Newman did not think 
it beneath him to draw inspiration from the pages of 
Lacordaire. Newman’s allusions to Napoleon are bat 
feeble echoes of Lacordaire’s brilliant references to the 
great Emperor — references which Montalembert says made 
of 4 Napoleon and his pretended conversion one of the most 
odious and repulsive commonplaces of the Christian pulpit . 9 
In France so much did the new style find favour that the 
great churches throughout the land had each its Lacordaire, 
and so stale and flat did the attempts to reproduce the 
inimitable eloquence of the great man become, that 
Montalembert sighed for the old prone of the modest 
country parish priest on the Catechism or the Ten Com- 
mandments. Lacordaire was among preachers what 
Napoleon was among generals — but enough ! let us get a 
glimpse of his style of eloquence, and let us bear in mind 
first that these noble periods were all 4 extempore * utter- 
ances, and, secondly, that Lacordaire suffers considerably 
from translation. Speaking of the longing after an indefinite 
something which fills our minds in early youth : — 

Scarcely do we count eighteen summers when we languish 
with desires whose object is neither the flesh, nor love, nor glory, 
nor anything that has shape or name. Wandering in the silence 
of solitude, or in the splendid thoroughfares of great cities, the 
young man feels oppressed with yearnings that have no name ; 
he flies the realities of life as a prison in which his heart is stifled, 
and he seeks in everything that is uncertain and vague — in the 
evening cloud, in the breeze of autumn, in the falling leaves of the 
woods, an impression which fills while it tortures him. But it is 
in vain the clouds fleet by, the winds are hushed, the leaves fade 
and wither without telling him why he suffers, without sating his 
soul any more than the tears of a mother or the tender affection 
of a sister. Oh, soul, would the Prophet exclaim, why art thou 
troubled — why art thou sad ? Trust in God. It is in fact God ! 
it is the Infinite which is at work in our hearts of twenty years, 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



touched by Christ, but which have unwittingly strayed from Him, 
and in which the Divine Unction no longer producing its super- 
natural effect, still wake up the storms it was destined to calm. 
Even in old age we receive some of these shocks of bygone days — 
some of those melancholy daydreams which the ancients looked 
upon as the portion of genius, and which gave rise to the saying, 
1 Non est magnum ingenum sine melancholia * The soul faltering 
betimes returns in pain within herself ; she betakes herself to the 
days of her youth to seek for tears, and no longer able to weep as 
of old, she lives for a moment on the painful but sweet memory 
of those tears. 

Of the frailty of human love, he says : — 

And supposing we did obtain it during life, what remains of 
it after death ? Granted that the prayer of our friend follows us 
beyond the tomb, a pious memory whispers our name, but in a 
moment Heaven and Earth have gone a step forward, oblivion 
descends, silence covers us, from no quarter is ever again wafted 
across our tomb the ethereal breath of love. It is gone, for ever 
gone, and such is the history of man’s love. 

As he grew older his eloquence became richer and more 
brilliant, if possible. ‘ The splendour of his eloquence/ 
writes Madame Swetchine, 4 is ever on the rise, and its 
beauty is incomparable. Never was talent seen ripening 
under more brilliant conditions, which seem to belong exclu- 
sively to youth/ Let me quote a passage, one of many 
equally brilliant, from one of his later speeches : — 

M. de Chateaubriand, bending under the weight of glory and 
years, was one day on the solitary banks of the Lido, at the 
extremity of the Venetian lagoons. The heavens, the sea, the 
air, the islet shores, the horizon of Italy, all appeared such as the 
poet had been wont to admire them of old. It was the same 
Venice, with her cupolas, rising up out of the water ; the same 
lion of Bt. Mark, with its famous inscription : * Peace to thee, 
Mark, my Evangelist ; ’ it was the oarne splendour, dimmed by 
defeat and servitude, but borrowing from the very ruins an 
imperishable charm ; it was, in fine, the same spectacle, the same 
noise, the same silence. The East and West united in one 
glorious spot at the foot of the Alps, lighted up by all the memo- 
ries of Greece and Eome. Still the old man became pensive and 
sad ; he could not believe that this was Venice, the Venice of his 
youth, which had so moved him ; and, understanding that it was 
himself alone who was no longer the same, he whispered to the 
sea breeze, which sighed to him in vain, this melancholy com- 
plaint : * The wind which blows upon a hoary head blows from 
no happy shore.’ 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



It is almost painful to quote from these gloriouB pages, 
quotations being so sadly insufficient to convey an adequate 
idea of the matchless splendour of the great preacher. Let 
it suffice to say that he who reads one page of Lacordaire 
will feel impelled to read another and another, with ever- 
increasing interest; and when he has read them all he will 
feel that so much deep philosophy, so much profound 
theology, so much keen discernment, so much splendid 
imagery, so much noble passion, so much sustained 
brilliancy, have never yet been found in the pages of any 
one pulpit orator. 

These Notre Dame conferences raised Lacordaire to a 
unique position among the French clergy ; and not in 
France alone did they make him famous, but they drew the 
eyea of Christendom towards him, and all recognised in him 
the preacher of the age. The time was when his heart 
thirsted for fame ; now he had gained what he so ardently 
desired. Was he satisfied ? Even that he still retained the 
ambition of his earlier days, his nature could not find content 
in the hollowness of human glory ; but now he had risen 
far above all worldly dreams. Fame had lost its attraction 
in his eyes. His desire now was to lead a quiet and simple 
life. Hence we find him descending from the pulpit of 
Notre Dame, and fleeing into the solitude of a religious 
order. Not that such a change occurred, however, without 
a struggle. The dying embers of his early ambition were 
still smouldering within, and as a consequence he felt the 
separation from the world bitter, very bitter. * The sacri- 
fice/ he says, ‘ was a terrible one/ But terrible as it was, 
he resolutely made it, and never after had reason to regret 
it. Entering the Dominican Order, he remained for years 
hidden in the obscurity of a Dominican monastery, acquiring 
the spirit of his new life, growing in sanctity and know- 
ledge, especially imbibing from the works of St, Thomas 
that profound theology which he was afterwards to make a 
new theme for his eloquence. When these years were over he 
appeared a second time in the pulpit of Notre Dame, and, 
clothed in the white Dominican habit, delivered a series of 
conferences more brilliant, if possible, than the first. The 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



crowds were even greater than on the former occasion ; and, 
though he appeared in a proscribed dress, such was his 
popularity that the authorities dared not interfere with 
him. Religious orders were at that time illegal in France. 
Lacordaire, by his overpowering eloquence, repealed, as it 
were, the obnoxious legislation. His appearance as a 
Dominican in the pulpit of Notre Dame was but a prelude 
to the introduction of the Dominicans once more into 
France. Eight houses started up around him in various 
parts of the country, and the prestige of his name conspired 
much to secure for them immunity from the interference of 
the law. The introduction of the Dominicans into France 
he regarded as the great object of his life. This great work 
accomplished, he was prepared to sing * Nunc dimitte servum 
huim Demine * Henceforth he devoted himself chiefly to 
the consolidation of his work. His voice, however, was 
heard frequently in Paris and in the provinces, always with 
unimpaired splendour. At Toulouse especially he surpassed 
himself. Other literary labours, too, he performed, amongst 
them being an elaborate life of St. Dominic. Thus he 
preached and wrote and laboured till the accession of 
Napoleon III., when he retired altogether from the pulpit 
into the solitude of Soreze, and there devoted himself for 
the remainder of his life to the education of youth. Only 
once do we And him in public again, and that occasion 
was when the French Academy appointed him one of its 
members. It was before the Academy he delivered his last 
Bwanlike public speech. 

Calmly, happily, full of labours, of merit, of fame, he 
went down gloriously, like the setting sun. His inner life 
corresponded with the splendour of his outer. He was a 
great religious, a true disciple of St. Dominic. Living in 
an age of luxury and waning faith, when the old principles 
of mortification had fallen into desuetude, he had the spirit 
of the olden times. His life was one of the most rigorous 
austerity — nay, it is thought that his penances shortened 
his life. At the age of sixty-four this great and good 
man ended his days in the bosom of that family which he 
had gathered around him. He was famous during* life, 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



bat his death will add to his fame. As ages roll by hiB 
name will become more revered and honoared, bis mighty 
genius will be more and more appreciated, and a hundred 
yearo hence it is not improbable that men will look back to 
him as the greatest preacher of all time. 

John Morphy. 

Digitized by L^OOQLe 

[ 361 ] 

Botes anb (Queries 



Rev. Dear Sir, — 1. Was it custom or a Papal grant that gave 
rise to the practice in Ireland of commencing Matins, etc., for 
next day, at 2 p.m., at all seasons of the year ? 

2. Is the privilege restricted to those in Holy Orders, or does 
it extend to those in minors and to mere clerics who, by reason 
of solemn religious vows, are bound to the divine office ? I have 
heard it stated for certain that solemnly-professed religious who 
are not subdeacons do not enjoy this Irish privilege, and a fortiori 
the same would hold good in the case of nuns, supposing that 
there are any such in Ireland bound to the Breviary. 

3. Is this privilege of anticipating confined to the recitation of 
Matins, etc., in private , or can it be used also in choro f 

4. Is this privilege purely territorial, so that the clergy lose it 
on leaving the Irish shore, and incoming peregrini may avail of it 
while here ? Or is it in any sense personal, so that the Irish 
clergy may use it abroad ? 

b. What if an Irish priest is permanently adopted, say in 
England, or on a temporary mission, or on vacation there ? 

6. Is Putzer correct in stating (Comment, in Facult . Apost., 
p. 307, ed. iv.) that the privilege, similar to ours, given by the 
Holy See to each of the American bishops personally, with power 
1 eamdem facultatem ecclesiasticis viris sive saecularibus sive 
regularibus communicandi,’ i3 per modum dispensations, and is 
on that account available outside the diocese ? Is it not rather 
thus available because of the obvious reason that the privilege is 
a personal one, being communicated to each subdeacon at his 
ordination in the seminary , and again to each priest in the printed 
list of diocesan faculties ? 

All these queries, of course, suppose that it is not safe in 
conscience to follow the opinion of many theologians, who 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



contend that Matins, etc., may be commenced ubique terrarum 
at 2 p.m. of the previous day. — Yours, etc., D. A. D 

The ordinary Liturgists give ns no help to answer these 
questions, which regard a local custom. But we have 
had the assistance of learned Theologians. 

Our correspondent’s queries do not require us to say 
anything about the general question of anticipation at 
2 p.m., nor of the existence of the privilege in Ireland. 
This is admitted even by the ecclesiastic who holds 4 that 
it is not safe in conscience to follow the opinion of many 
Theologians, who contend that Matins, etc., may be com- 
menced ubique terrarum at 2 p.m. of the previous day.’ 

1. It is custom and not an express Papal grant that 
gives rise to the privilege. We have failed to discover even 
a reference to such Papal grant as would account for the 
general practice. If it ever existed, it is likely that there 
would be some trace of it, which would be known to those 
whom we have consulted. 

2. We can see no ground for distinction except between 
those to whom common estimation grants the benefit of 
the custom and those to whom it does not. We consulted 
the representatives of the various Religious Orders in 
Ireland, and we find that some think that their Orders have 
not the custom even for those who are in Holy Orders. 
Whether the fact that they have not made use of the 
custom is a proof that they have not a right to it, we 
cannot decide. But we have no doubt that all others, who 
are bound to the Breviary, enjoy it. 

3. Our view of the custom is that it did not mean to 
interfere with the regular hours of recitation in choro. 
Even those theologians who hold that Matins may be 
commenced always and everywhere at this hour, seem to 
confine the privilege to the private recitation. For instance, 
Ballerini, in his Opus Theologicum Morale, v ol. iv., p. 301, 
writes : 4 Quaestio heic occurrit circa horam idoneam reci- 
tando privatim Matutino.’ 

4. It is purely territorial in the sense that the ‘ clergy 
lose it on leaving the Irish shore,’ etc. It is personal only 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



in the sense that they enjoy it throughout Ireland. ‘ Privi- 
legiurn contra legem ,’ says Lehmkuhl (vol. i., p. 139), ‘ odiosum 
esse censetur ; * and p. 140 : ‘ Privilegium odiosum personals 
est strictae omnino interpretationis Now it is not at all 
clear that there is a custom established by the Irish clergy 
of commencing Matins, etc., at 2 p.m. abroad. No doubt 
Matins may be said at this hour by the ecclesiastic, who 
holds the opinion of the maijy theologians who contend 
that Matins, etc., may be commenced ubique terrarum at 
2 p.m. — not in virtue of his Irish privilege but of his 
theological conviction. 

5. The Irish privilege ceasing, the priest must guide 
himself by the general principles of the treatise De Legibus y 
Le.y he must observe the common law, unless there be some 
new privilege to which he is entitled. 

6. Putzer’s dispensation and our correspondent’s privilege 
contra legem differ only in name. Dispensation is the better 

Evidently Putzer conceives the American concession to 
be personal in the widest sense. We presume that he 
knows from the American Bishops that this is the mens 
legislatoris who gave the positive grant. We are not so 
certain on this point about the custom, the source from 
which we derive our privilege ; in this the Irish and 
American privileges are dissimilar. 

P. O’Leary. 

Digitized by {jOOQle 

[ 364 ] 



Rev. Deak Sib, —Kindly allow me to direct attention to an 
inaccuracy, the result of some oversight, on page 56 of the new 
edition of the Ordo Exsequiarum which I brought out last year. 

The Prayer Fidelium , at Lauds on All Souls* Day, is there 
incorrectly printed with the short ending, Qui vivis et regnas in 
saecula saccnlorum . As it is the Prayer of the Office of the day, 
it should of course have the longer ending, Qui vivis et regnal 
cum Deo Patrc , etc. This is expressly directed in the rubric of 
the Breviary. 

On page 110, in connection with the rite of Absolution on All 
Souls’ Day, the Prayer Fidelium is quite correctly printed with 
the short ending. An answer of the Sacred Congregation of Rites 
in reference to the ending of this Prayer at the Absolution, even on 
All Souls* Day, is quoted on page 103, footnote 3. 

The inaccuracy on page 56, which somehow had escaped notice 
even during a most careful revision of the final proofs, forcibly 
attracted my attention the very first time that I used the book 
at a Requiem Office, on All Souls* Day last year. I thought it 
better to reserve this notice of it for the October number of the 
Record, in order to secure, as far as possible, that the correction 
should be before the minds of those using the book at Vespers 
on the 1st, or at Lauds on the 2nd of the coming November. 

I remain, 

Rev. and Dear Sir, 

Your faithful servant, 

William J. Walsh, 
Archbishop of Dublin. 

18 tk September , 1901. 

Digitized by 

[ 365 ] 




Hodiemus Magister Caeremoniarum Dioecesis Vicensia in 
Hispania, rogatus a Cappellano maiore cuiusdam aocietatis navi- 
gations, de consensu Bmi. sui Episcopi, a Sacrorum Bituum 
Congregatione sequentium Dubiorum solutionern ^lumillime 
expostulavit, nimirum : 

I. Ufcrum Episcopi possint sacerdotibus suae Dioecesis facul- 
tatem concedere, ut navigantes Missam in altari in navi erecto 
celebrare valeant ? 

II. Utrum hanc ipsam facultatem tribuere possint omnibus 
sacerdotibus Episcopi, in quorum Dioeoesi adsint portus maris? 

III. Utrum missionarii apostolici, vi huius tituli, yaleant in 
navi celebrare, absque lioentia Sedis Apostolicae ? 

IV. Utrum. sacerdotes, qui privilegio fruuntur celebrandi 
ubique, yaleant, vi huius privilegii in navi celebrare absque speciali 
Indulto Apostolico ? 

V. Utrum Cappellae navium aut altariain ipsis navibus erecta 
pro sacro litando debeant considerari ut Oratoria privata vel 

VI. Utrum in praedictis altaribus valeant celebrari Missae de 
Bequie concessae per Deere turn 3903 Aucto, diei 8 Iunii 1896 ad II, 
et 3944 Romana, diei 12 Ianuarii 1877 ? 

Et Sacra eadem Gongregatio, ad relationem subscripti 
Seoretarii, exquisito voto Commissionis Liturgicae omnibusque 
rite perpensis, rescribendum censuit : 

Ad 1, II, III et IV. Negative. 

Ad V. Si Cappella locum fixum habcat in navi , uti publica pro 
navigantibus habenda est ; sec us neque publica est t neque privata t 
sed habetur uti altare poriatile . 

Ad VI. Affirmative. 

Atque ifca rescripsit, die 4 Martii 1901. 

Dominicus Card. Ferrata, S.R.C. Praefectus. 

L. i * S. 

Diomedes Panici, Archiep. Laodicen ., Secretarius . 

Digitized by L^ooQle 








In redigendis Calendariis partioularium Eoclesiarum, sequentia 
exorta sunt dubia, quorum solutionem hodiemus redactor 
Calendarii Archidioeceseos Utinensis, de consensu Bmi. sui 
Ordinarii, a Sacra Bituum Congregatione humiliter expetivit, 
nimirum : 

I. Qu%pdo Dedicatio propriae Ecclesiae oocurrit vel concurrit 
cum festo titulari ipsius Ecclesiae, et Festum Titulare est Trans- 
figuratio Domini vel SS. Kedemptor, in occursu vel ooncursu 
quodnam est praeferendum ? 

II. In concursu diei octavae Dedicationis propriae Ecclesiae 
cum Festis Transfigurationis Domini, vel Dedicationis Basilicarum 
SS. Salvatoris et Ss. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli Almae Ur bis, 
quomodo ordinandae sunt Vesperae ? 

Et Sacra eadem Congregatio, ad relationem subscripti Secre- 
tarii, audito voto Gommissionis Liturgicae, reque mature perpensa, 
respondendum censuit : 

Ad I. Quum enuntiatus titulus sit Festum Domini, in occursu 
Festum Titulare praeferendum est Dedicationi : in concursu 
Vesperae dividantur. 

Ad II. Dies octava Dedicationis Ecclesiae propriae non cedit 
iuxta Bubricas, nisi duplici secundae classis. 

Atque ita rescripsit, die 4 Martii 1901. 

Dominicus Card. Ferrata, S.R.C. Praefectus. 

L, S. 

Diomedes Panici, Archiep. Laodiccn. S.R.C, Secretarius. 



A quibusdam Calendariorum redactoribus Sacrorum Bituum 
Gongregationi sequentia Dubia proopportuna solutioue, reverenter 
proposita fuerunt, nimirum : 

I. Utrum circa orationes pro Ecclesia et pro Papa id reti- 
nendum sit ut, si altera vi Bubricae, altera ex praecepto 

Digitized by L 3 OQle 



Ordinarii praesoribatur, utraque, prouti de more, in Missa dioi 
debeat ? 

II. Num Pater , Ave et Credo post chorale Officium stantes vel 
genuflexi recitare debeant chorales, uti stantes vel genuflexi re'ci- 
tare tenentur finalem Antiphonam ? 

III. Quando alicubi celebratur Anniversarium Dedicationis 
omnium Ecclesiarum, huiusmodi festum est ne secundarium pro 
illis Ecclesiis, quae consecratae non sunt ? 

IV. An dies octava aliouius festi habentis Octavam Corporis 
Christi, ubi liaec Octava non est privilegiata ad instar Epiphaniae, 
sed ita ut quae vis duplicia classica, sive occurrentia sive translata 
admittat, celebranda sit per integrum Officium, vel per solam 
commemorationem ? 

V. In Festo Expectationis Partus B. M. V. quod incidit in 
Feriam VI quatuor temporum, cantandae ne sunt duae Missae in 
Ecclesiis Cathedralibus et Collegiatis, videlicet una de Festo et 
altera de Feria, etsi quandam identitatem habeant, vel tantum 
canenda est Missa de Festo ? 

VI. Iqxta Rubricas speciales Breviarii et Missalis Romani 
Festum Annuntiationis B. M. V., transferendum quoad chorum 
tantum in Feriam II post Dominicam in Albis tanquam in sedem 
propriam, non oedit nisi Fe9to primario eiusdem ritus occurrenti, 
quo in oasu in sequentem diem similiter non impeditum transferri 
debet ; quaeritur : In hoc postremo casu, concurrente Festo 
primario duplioi primae classis, celebrato dicta Feria II, cum Festo 
Annuntiationis B. M. V. recolendo Feria III immediate sequenti, 
de quo Festo erunt dicendae Vesperae ? Et regula quae traditur 
pro enunciato casu applicanda ne erit aliis casibus similibus 
ex. gr. in conourrentia Festi primarii duplici primae classis cum 
Festo S. Ioseph, Sponsi B. M. V., translato iuxta Rubricas in 
sequentem diem 20 Martii, vel in Feriam IV post Dominicam in 

VII. Concurrente die octava Dedicationis propriae Ecclesiae 
duplici min. cum Festo Dedicationis Basilicarum SS. Apostolo- 
rum Petri et Pauli dupl. mai. quomodo ordinandae erunt Ves- 

VIII. Quando Commemoratio omnium SS. S. R. E. Sum- 
morum Pontificum occurrit Dominica infra Octavam Omnium 
Sanctorum, eadem Postcommunio habetur pro Missa de Festo et 
pro dicta Octava : in casu unde sumenda erit Postcommunio pro 
Octava ? 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



IX. In primis Yesperis Festi duplicis primae olassis 
Commemoratio diei Octavae Dedicationis propriae Ecclesiae, cuius 
Officium mane persolutum fuit, faciendane est vel omittenda ? 

X. Privilegium translation is quo iuzta Rubricas gaudent Festa 
primaria SB. Ecclesiae Doctor um ritus dupl. min. si impedita 
fuerint, extendine debet ad eorum Festa secundaria eiusdem 

Et Sacra eadem Congregatio ad relationem infrascripti Secre- 
tarii, audito voto Gommissionis Liturgioae, oranibusque mature 
perpensis, rescribendum censuit : 

Ad I„ II. et III. Affirmative. 

Ad IV. Negative ad primaui partem : Affirmative ad secun- 
dam. 1 

Quoad utramque quaestionem. Ad VI. Vesperae fiant de 
Festo digniori cum commemoratione Festi dignitate inferioris. 

1 Videlioet : Si dies octava alicuius festi habentis octavam incidat in aliam 
octavam, quae ita sit privilegiata, ut sola duplicia classica adoiittat, oelebrari 
non potest per integrum officium, sed per solam commemoration em. Haee est 
regula generalis certo tenenda post relatum Deere turn, cjuod ration! liturgioae, 
praetorquamquod quaestionem inter peritos ex auotontate dirim it, sapienter 
innititur. Et sane quando aliqua octava sic privilegiata oonoeditur, nt sola 
duplicia classica admittat, esto etiam quod non solum sint occurrentia, verum 
etiam translata, nullum oerte aliud festum admittere potest, sed debet exdudere, 
quod inferioris est ritus. Excludet ergo eiusmodi sic privilegiata octava semi- 
duplicia, duplicia minora, etiam Doctoris Ecclesiae. ac duplicia maiora. Quare 
ergo excludere non debet etiam octavam diem, nisi aliquo et haec privilegio 
fruatur P Etenim dies ootava est per se dup. minus ; atqui dupl. minus, infra 
ostavam tali modo privilegiatam occurrens, oelebrari per integrum officium 
nequit, ergo neque talis octava dies poterit oelebrari. 

Equidem quaecumque dies octava privilegio gmudet, ut in oocursu praevaleat 
duplici cuicumque miuori atque etiam maiori, sed duplioi II olassis praevalere 
nunquam potest. Ergo dies octava quaecumque duplici quocumque II olassis. 
ut de duplici I cl. taceamus. semper erit inferior. Gonsequenter, peculiari 
quoque admisso privilegio, vi cuius dies octava duplicibus minoribus et 
maiori bus in occursu prae valet, nunquam praevalere poterit, imo neque 
aequip&rari duplici II olassis. Atqui in hypothesi sola duplicia II olassis ad* 
mittuntur, ergo admitti non potest dies ootava, quae duplici II cl. ne aequiparari 
quidem potest, sed eo est inferior. 

Hie autera animadvertendum i st, non esse instituendam comparationem inter 
rituoi octavae privilegiatae et ritum diei octavae in illam incidentis ; quia, hao 
instituta comparatione, non solum dies octava celebranda esset infra quam- 
cumque aliam privilegiatam, sed etiam quodcnmque duplex, et plura etiam ad 
minus semiduplicia. Dies namque infra octavam quamcumque, genera tim 
loquendo, semiduplicis sunt ritus, imo et secundarii qualitate gaudent ; ergo 
infra earn de quooumque duplici agendum esset, et etiam de semiduplioi saltern 
primage. Sed comparatione instituta inter ritum et ritum, tunc privilegio, quo 
ootava ditata est, valedio&mtis oportet ; quo admisso, iara quaestionis oonfinia 
exoedimus. Privilegium enim in eo oonsistit, ut de semiduplioi infra octavam 
privilegiatam fieri possit, aliis exclusis fastis etiam superioris ritus ; ut proinde 
comparatio inter ritum diei infra octavam privilegiatam et ritum diei octavae 

Digitized by 



Ad VII. Vesperae erunt de die octava cum comm, de 
sequent i. 

Ad VIII. In casu Postcommunio desumatur ex Missa Vigiliae 
Omnium Sanctorum 

Ad IX Affirmative ad primam partem, Negative ad secun- 
dam. 1 

Ad X. Negative. 

Atque ita rescripsit, die 4 Marti i 1901. 

Dominicus Card. Ferrata, S.R.C . Praefectus. 

L. *£• S. 

Diomedkb Panici, Archiep. Laodicen Secretarius. 

locum habere nequeat. Ita ex. gr. dies infra octavam Epiphaniae sunt ritus 
semiduplicis, excludunt tarnen omnia dnplicia occurrenlia, nisi sint I *lassis. 
Frustra ergo in quaestionem adducerentur momenta nuperioritatis ritus in 
festis occurrentibus, quippe quae, etsi potiora sint, exoluduntur nihilominus ob 
privileginm ootavae. Consequenter de semiduplici infra octavam semper erit 
agendum, nisi aliquod duplex I cl occurrat, contra quodcumque aliud festum 
duplex occurrens. Iam quaeri potest, si ex hypothec, quae comprobari vi 
Rubricarum nequit, ante festum Epiphaniae occurreret fettum duplex cum 
octava, eiusque octava dies incidcret infra octavam sic privilegiatam Epiphaniae, 
de hac die octava celebrari ne posset officium ? Mini me gentium, quia dies 
octava non est duplex I classis. A pari, si dies octava occurrat infra octavam 
Corpuris Christ! sic privilegiatam ut sola duplicia I et II cl. admittat : videlicet, 
de ea die octava fieri nequibit officium. quia dies octava neque dup. I, neque il 
classis est, quamvis II cl magis quam I appropinquet. 

Quae turnon dicta sint generaliter, cum ceterum S. R. C. quando has octavas 
privilegiatas indulget, utplurimum innuit, praeter festa generaliter exciudenda, 
ea particular! ter, quae celebrari praecipit. Ita Deere turn in Asculana n. 2611 
(4576) indulget octavas ita privilegiatas SS. Corporis Christi et Assumptionis 
Deiparae, ut fieri tantum infra illas posait de duplicibus I et II classis, infra 
octavam vero Assumptionis excipit etiam octat am diem S. Laurentii, de qua 
vult ut officium fiat. Equidem cl. Gardellinius in relativa adnotatione, dooet 
hanc esse velnti regulaiu generalem, quod tamen nequaquam ostendit, et con- 
trarium praesenti Decreto asseritur. 

Similiter Decretnm 2688 (4680) indulget festum SS. Trinitatis cum octava 
privilegiata, ita ut duplicia omnia pariter excludat, nisi I aut II cl. fuerint ; 
vult nihilominus ut ae aliqua die octava festi octavam habentis, integrum 
oelebretur officium. Hano quoque dispoMtionem particularem teneas; agitur 
enim de Indulto, quod tantum concedit, quantum legislator vult. Sod 
generalem regulam solum Dec re turn praesens exhibet, uti ex to to oontextu 
patet ; adeo ut, quando aliqua octava privilegiata a S. R. C. ita conceditur, ut 
ae sobs fibri posait duplicibus classicis, dies aliqua octava, quae infra iilam 
potest incidere, per integrum officium celebrari non possit, sed tantum per 
oommemorationem. Hao de ratione soluta ac demonstrata, seu ex raticne 
liturgica seu ex auctoritate, quaestio in Ephemeridibus, cuius solutionem 
prudenter distulimus, pro mense Aprili proposita. 

1 Hinc in Decreto 8624 ad Vlt. responsionis Negative suffice Affirmative', 
et Rubiioa, quae ibi servanda dicitur, est quae prostat post Tabellum Concur- 
rentiae, num. 2. 

VOL. X. 2 A 

Digitized by L^OOQle 






Beatibsime Pater, 

Ad pedes Sanctitatis Vestrae humiliter provolutus Officialis 
Curiae N., nomine et consensu sui Archiepiscopi reverenter 
exponit quae sequuntur : 

Decreto Generali Sanctoe Romanae efc Universalis Inquisitionis 
diei 9 Junii 1889 statutum est quasdam causas matrimoniales, 
quando nullitas est evidens, posse dirimi UDa sententia imminutis 
solemnitatibus et absque appellatione officio. 

Inter quos casus adest etiam clandestinitas quoad locos ubi 
Tridentinum decretum ‘ Tametsi ’ observatur. Quod semper 
intellexit haec Curia Archiepiscopalis hoc sensu quod nempe una 
sufficit sententia de piano quoties evidens delectus adest in obser- 
vantia formae Tridentinae, ut si v.g. unus tantum testis adesset, 
aut si matrimonium contractum fuisset coram solo ministro 
acatholico, etc. Quum autem forma Tridentina plene cbservata 
fuit et quaestio movetur tantum de qualitate proprii parochi, 
etiamsi evidens appareat delectus domicilii aut quasi-domicilii 
item et deiegationis, semper solemnitates omnes observautur et fit 
appellatio ex officio. 

Sed et alii casus occurrunt, nec ita infrequenter, eorum nempe 
qui in fraudem potius legis civilis ne parentum consensum obti- 
nere teneantur, pergnnt in Angliam vel in alios locos ubi 
Tridentinum decretum non est promulgatum, et post paucos dies 
statim reversuri, ibi matrimonium contrahunt vel coram Officiali 
Civili ‘ registrar,’ vel coram ministello acatholico, vel tandem 
coram ministro catholico, adstante * registrar,' nulla habita dele- 
gatione proprii Ordinarii vel parochi delegatione. Hisce enim in 
casibus fere semper evidentissima apparet nullitas, praesertim 
cum contractus fit coram ministro acatholico, nunquam enim 
delegatio, etiamsi data fuisset, daretur ad contrahendum coram 
huiusmodi ministello. 

Hisce stantibus, humiliter quaeritur : 

I. Quoad matrimonia quae in Galliis, seu in locis ubi, promul- 
gatum est decretum 1 Tametsi * contrahuntur coram parocho et 
duobus testibus, num liceat appellationem ex officio omittere, 
quum ex actis evidenter concludi potest parochum non fuisse 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



proprium et nullam delegationem datam fuisse ab Ordinario vel 
parocho proprio alterutrius contrahentium ? 

II. Quoad matrimonia quae a catholicis, domicilium retinen- 
tibus in loco ubi decretum ‘ Tametsi * observatur, contrahuntur in 
loco ubi idem decretum non viget, quin ibi acquisierint domicilium 
vel quasi-domicilium, num soiemnitates processus matrimonialis 
stricte servandae sint quando evidenter constat eos contraxisse in 
fraudem legis et praesertim in fraudem legis civilis ? 

III. Num saltern habito processu cum requisitis solemnifca- 
tibus, dataque nullitatis evidentia, Defensor matrimonii possit 
abstinere ab appellations ex officio? 

IV. Tandem num sufficiat processus summarius y et omitti possit 
appellatio, quoties matrimonium contractum est coram ministello 
acatholico vel coram uno magistratu civili? 

Et Deus etc. 

Feria IV, die 27 Martii 1901 

In Congregations Generali S. R. et U. Inquisitionis ab EEmis. 
ac RRmis. DD. Cardinalibus Generaiibus Inquisi tori bus habita, 
propositis suprascriptis dubiis, praehabitoque RR. DD. Consul- 
torum voto, EE. ac RR. Patres respondendum mandarunt : 

4 Provisum per Decretum S. R. et U. Inquisitionis 5 Iunii 
1889, quod intclligendum est tantum do causis, in quibus certo 
et evidenter constet do impedimentis, de quibus agitur, quae 
'certitudo si desit, a defensqre vinculi matrimonialis ad secundam 
instantiam procedendum erit.’ 1 

1 Eli decretum de quo agitur : * In Congregatioue Generali liabita feria IV 
die 5 Junii 1889, Emi ac Rmi. DD. Cardinales in rebus fidei et muruin Inqui- 
sitores Generates decreverunt ; 

' Quando agitur de impediments disparitatis cultus et evidenter constat 
on am partem esse baptizatam ; et alteram non fuisse baptizatam ; quando 
agitur de impediments ligaminis et certo constat primum coniugum esse 
legitimum, et adhuc vivere ; quando denique agitur de consanguiuitate aut 
aflinitate ex copula licita, aut edam de cognitione spirituali vel de impedimento 
clandestinitatis in locis ubi Decretum Trideutinum Tametsi publicatum est, vel 
uti tale din observatur, dummodo ex certo et authentico documenlo, vel in 
huius defectu ex certis argumentis evidenter constet de existentia huiusmodi 
impediment torum, super quibus Ecclesiae auctoritate dispensatum non f uerit ; 
hisce in casibus, praetermissis solemnitatibus in Constitutione Apostolica Dei 
Aiueratione requisitis, matrimonium potent ab Ordinariis declarari nullum, cum 
interventu tamen fc Defensoris vinculi matrimonialis, quin opus sit secunda 

4 Boehm Feria ac die 

'SSmus. D. N. D. Leo PP. XIII decretum Emorum. PP. approbavit et 

• L Can. Maugzni, 8* Jt . et U. Inquieit . Notariat. ’ 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 

f 372 ] 


Church Music Series. No. 1. Gregorian Mass for Solemn 
Feasts (Missa in Festis Solemnibus) with Pange lingua 
and Litany of the Saints for Forty Hours* Adoration, 
in Staff and Sol-fa Notation especially suitable for 
School and Confraternity Church Choirs. Edited by a 
Catholic Priest. Dublin : Browne and Nolan, Ltd. 
London: Catholic Truth Society, 1901. 

The reform of Church music in theso countries has been 
considerably impeded by the want of practical editions of suitable 
music. Although the annual output of Church music on the 
Continent is something enormous, so that it would appear as if 
every possible want were supplied, still the special conditions of 
our choirs are such as to demand special editions suited for them. 
To supply this want ‘ a Catholic Priest * has undertaken a Church 
Music Series, the first number of which we have under review. 
It contains Gregorian melodies suited for, and required by, most 
choirs, the 4 Mass for Solemn Feasts * including the Asperges , 
as well as the Pange lingua and the Litany of the Saints, with the 
subsequent prayers as used at the Forty Hours’ Adoration: 
The special feature of the publication is the combination of the 
Tonic-sol-fa and the Gregorian Staff notations, the object being, 
as set forth in an admirably written preface, to give the notation 
that is best understood in most of our schools, and at the same 
time to accustom our singers gradually to the Gregorian notation. 

In transcribing the melodies into Tonic-sol-fa notation the 
editor has abstained from expressing the various forms of 
the Gregorian notes, and of this we fully approve. For 
although it appears that the original editors of the Medicean 
Gradual wanted the three forms of notes to express different 
durations of sound, it is now almost universally agreed that all 
through the middle ages these forms did not express duration, 
and the idea is getting more and more accepted that even for the 
Medicean version of Gregorian Chant a method of rendering 
which does not treat the notes as indicating different length is 
preferable. Did not Dr. Haherl, one of the editors of the 
4 Ratisbon * Gradual, which originally was an exact reprint of the 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



Medicaea , speak recently of 1 the superstition that the longa meant 
a long tone * ? 

In the Litany of the Saints the method of ‘pointing' the 
various invocations is indicated by different type for the syllables 
on which the inflections take place. Of the rules followed in this 
pointing we fully approve. The psalm Deus in adjutorium is 
similarly treated. The last versicle Et fidelium would, we think, 
have been given better in a lower pitch. There is certainly a rule 
that the Fidelium at the end of Vespers should be sung submissa 
voce , and the same would seem, by analogy, to hold for the 
versicle alluded to. A fall of a fifth, to /, might be the most 
suitable arrangement. 

The printing of the Gregorian notation is not up to the 
standard of the best modern work of this kind. Sometimes, 
moreover, neums are printed in a scattered manner, which does 
not look well. But when we get twenty-six pages for a penny, 
we must not grumble at a slight want of elegance. 

We sincerely hope that the little book will meet with a very 
large demand, and that further numbers of the series will appear 

H. B. 

The Irish College in Paris (1578-1901). With a brief 
Account of the other Irish Colleges in France — Bordeaux, 
Toulouse, etc. By the Rev. P. Boyle, C.M., Rector of 
the College. 

Let it be said at once that this is a very interesting book, if only 
for the eighteen documents which are printed in the appendix. The 
author dates the foundation of the Irish College in Paris from the 
arrival in that city of the Rev. John Lee and six Irish students* 
who took up residence, in 1578, in the College Montaign, one of 
the colleges of the Paris University. It is not stated when exactly 
the Irish students, who came to seek in France that education 
which was denied them at home, became a distinct college ; but 
there is clear evidence that there was in Paris, in 1621, an Irish 
* seminary of at least twenty-four priests and students, supported 
formerly at the expense of the great L’Escalopier, and now aided 
by the benevolence of his widow and of other persons who fear 
and love God, and under the wise government of a truly worthy 
man, the Rev. John Ley.' In 1623 this seminary was legally recog- 
nised as a college of the University of Paris, and Document 3 of 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



the appendix contains the 4 Rules of the Irish Seminary, Paris, 
a.d. 1826.* Those rules obliged the inmates to rise at 4.30 a.m., 
and to assemble at 5 a.m. for meditation — 4 Hora quinta matutina 
praecise, et hora octava vespertina omnes accedant ad preces 
communes quae divisae sunt in mentalem et actualem. Norma 
vero qua mentalis peragi debeat, a Praefecto Statuatur Praefec- 
tusque in hoc genere orationis rationera quaevat a Seminaristis.* 
One of those rules obliged the students to master the French 
language, and to speak only Latin or French within the college. 
There is not much known about the site or internal history of the 
college during the first period of its existence (1578-1677). There 
is, however, ample evidence that it formed a live part of the great 
Paris University. * Several Irishmen held chairs in the University 
colleges.* In 1652 a M'Namara was Professor of Philosophy 
in the College of Cardinal Lemoine, an O’Moloy Professor of 
Philosophy in the College of Beauvais, and a Poer Professor of 
Philosophy in the College of Liseux. It was in the room of the 
latter that the Irish students met, in 1651, to protest against the 
spread of Jansenism in the University. They made figure enough 
to attract even the attention of the poets of the day. Rulhiere, in a 
humorous poem, Sur les Disputes , places them in the front rank 
of the school disputants : — 

4 Vanez-y, venez voir, comme sur un theatre 
Une dispute en regie, un choc opini&tre. 

Deo moines echaufifes vrai fleau des docteurs 
De pauvres Hibernois, complaisants disputeurs 
Qui fuyant leur pays pour les saintes promesses 
Viennent vivre a Paris d*arguments et de Mosses.* 

The allusion in this last line to living on Masses had special 
relevancy, for most of the Irish students were first ordained 
priests, and afterwards educated, this arrangement enabling them 
to defray in part the expenses of their education out of their 
4 honoraria * for Masses. 

In 1677 the Irish students got possession of a deserted Italian 
college, called the Lombard College, which was founded in 
a.d. 1333, and endowed for the support of eleven poor Italian 
students. This soon became the centre of the Irish colony. 
After 1685 it contained two communities, one of priests and the 
other of clerics. The priests were governed by four provisors, 
one from each of the four Irish provinces ; while the clerics were 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



under a prefect of studies. It would seem that the arrangement 
did not always work smoothly, and it was doubtless a change for 
the better when the clerics removed, in 1769, to new premises. 

* The Rev. Laurence Kelly, the energetic prefect of the clerics, 
having obtained a royal permission, purchased a house and plot of 
ground in the Rue au Cheval Vert, now Rue des Irlandais, at a 
cost of 47,000 francs, and caused to be erected the buildings 
which form the actual Irish College.* 

Prom this date until the Revolution the two Irish Colleges — 
the Lombard College for priests and the new college which became 
tbe present Irish College — carried on their work in peace and 
success. The second chapter of Father Boyle’s book deals with 
the history of the Irish student colony in Paris from 1577 to the 
Revolution, and is full of interesting details — details of the studies, 
discipline, ond domestic life of the students, of their relations 
with the University and the ecclesiastical authorities, and of their 
relations with the mother country and the French Government. 

It is with regret that we leave this period during which the 
Irish students breathed the atmosphere of the Paris University, 
to pass on to the days when the Irish College entered on its career 
as an isolated seminary. It was the influence of university 
education that gave us tho list of distinguished names referred to 
in those pages — that gave us those ‘ Jesuits of the secular clergy * 
whom Leokv in his Ireland in the Eighteenth Century has charac- 
terised as * mild, amiable, cultivated, learned, polite, uniting the 
meek spirit of the Christian pastor to the winning gentleness of 
the man of the world.* 

In tho early days of the Revolution tho property of British 
subjects was respected, and so the Lombard College became a safe 
retreat for the French clergy, ‘until the fearful days of La 
Terreur.’ The sister college was during this time the scene of 
some stirring episodes. Here is one of the most picturesque : — 

' It is stated that on one occasion the mob attempted to force 
their way into the College. A student named M'Canna (more 
probably M'Kenna) kept them at bay holding a pistol in hand. 

. . . . He addressed the crowd, and said that the Irish had 

come to France relying on French hospitality. .... The 
crowd listened, and at last withdrew, saying C'est un grand bon 

When war was declared with England after the Kings 
execution, the property of both Colleges was confiscated, and their 

Digitized by 



history for a time sinks into night. They emerge about 1804 
united to the English and Scotch Colleges, and possessed of what- 
ever remained of all the other Irish Colleges in France. In 1814 it 
was separated from the English and Scotch Colleges, and remained 
the sole heir of the Irish Colleges of Bordeaux, Toulouse, Nantes, 
Poiters, Douai, and Lille, not one of which survived the Revolu- 
tion. The whole estimated loss of Irish ecclesiastical property in 
France amounted to about two and a half million of francs. 

In chapter IV the author deals with the College as reorganised 
after the Revolution. 

* We learn from the evidence of Dr. O’Higgina before the 
Royal Commission at Maynooth in 1826 that the Irish College 
students at that period numbered nearly sixty ; that they had 
their classes in the College and no longer attended the University 
as was the custom before the Revolution, that the studies were 
solid and the discipline of the house most regular/ 

The relations of the College with the English Government as 
detailed in this chapter are of a curious character. The College 
authorities presented in 1816 to the French Government a claim 
for indemnity for the enormous losses sustained during the 
Revolution. The French Government, in discharge of its obliga- 
tions, placed a bulk sum (producing an annual interest of three 
million francs) at the disposal of England, 1 leaving to that Power 
the duty of examining and adjudicating on the claims of her own 
subjects/ The English tribunal to which the matter was referred 
refused, and has since repeatedly refused, to indemnify the Irish 
Colleges on the grouud that 1 although their members were British 
subjects .... their end and object were directly opposed 
to British law/ 

* Meanwhile the College continued its educational work. Many 

of the students . . . became distinguished In 

1835 B Fitzpatrick, afterwards Lord Abbot of Mount Melleray, 
matriculated. In 1836 Lawrence Gilloly, and in 1839 Thomas 
Croke entered the Irish College as students/ 

The working of the College was handed over in 1858 to the 
Vincentian Fathers on account of * certain disciplinary difficulties ' 
which are not stated, but which have certainly disappeared, for it 
is recognised that in the hands of the sons of St. Vincent de Paul 
this historic institution has done excellent service in supplying the 
Irish Church with learned and zealous priests. Among the many 
obligations which the Vincentian Fathers have placed Ireland 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



under, not the least is one of gratitude for the present com- 
pilation, which is a solid and scholarly contribution to Irish 
Church history, and will preserve from oblivion many documents, 
facts, and incidents illustrating the faith of our fathers, the 
sufferings and triumphs of Irish students abroad, the generosity 
of France and the tyranny of England. 

After reading the interesting chapter on the other Irish 
Colleges in France, one must regret that the author was unable to 
unearth any information about the Irish seminaries at Rouen 
and Bourges. 

T. P. G. 

Geographical and Historical School Reader for 
Third and Fourth Standards. School and College 
Series. Edited by Rev. T. A. Finlay, M.A., F.R.U.I. 
Dublin : Eblana Press. 

This little book provides for the third and fourth standards 
such a reader as we believe our schools exactly want. It is 
admirably adapted to train children to observe things for them- 
selves, to stimulate them to healthy habits of enquiry, and to 
make their knowledge practical. The amount of technical infor- 
mation to the readers is very considerable, but nothing beyond 
the capacity of those for whom the book is intended. 

By very easy stages the Geographical Reader teaches children 
to discover the four cardinal points and the north star, teaches 
them the use, principle, and construction of the mariner’s com- 
pass, the use of the divided rule, and by a series of graduated 
exercises, beautifully simple, leads them up to drawing to scale a 
plan of the school-room. This is but a specimen of the great 
amount of practical elementary geography which the Reader 
conveys in a manner at once interesting and impressive. 

The Historical Reader, in the same mauner, treats in twenty- 
nine lessons of the origin of the Celtic and Teutonic races, of the 
Irish Celts and Anglo-Saxons, of the conversion to Christianity of 
Ireland and England, of the Danish and Norman invasions of 
either country. There is a special lesson on St. Patrick, on the 
story of Columcille, on the Crusades, and on St. Thomas a 

Each part contains eighty-four pages. The book is well bound 
and illustrated, and is sold to pupils of National Schools for 

Digitized by 



The Bible and Rationalism. By the Rev; John Klein. 
In four volumes. New York, etc. : Herder. 

Father Klein is already favourably known by his Christian 
Anthropology and Ecclesiastical Dictionary. By his countrymen 
in the United States he is regarded as one of the most prolific 
writers on subjects of interest to all Catholics at the present day* 
A work from his pen, Answers to Difficulties of the Bible , and 
which appeared some years ago, has been recast and enlarged, as 
he tells us, and is now republished under the title, The Bible and 
Rationalism. In its expanded form it consists of four goodly 
volumes, and may be regarded practically as a new work. It is 
designed to supply English readers with a reply to those objec- 
tions which at the present day are so frequently made against the 
truth of certain books of Scriptures. 

Fortunately for ourselves, we never hear in Ireland anything 
disrespectful to the inspired Book; but it is not so in the United 
States and in some other English-speaking countries. There the 
need of defending the Bible against the attacks of unbelievers is 
not an uncommon experience. But while in France, Germany, 
and Spain several apologists — such as Moigno, Motais, Guibert, 
Meignan, Vigouroux, Braun, and Gonzalez — have deserved well 
of their countrymen, in English-speaking lands very little has 
yet been done by an orthodox pen. There have been, of course, 
occasionally articles in the reviews, but scarcely a book worth 

It is true that Father Klein writes in a popular fashion. His 
work is not intended for professed students of Scripture or 
Oriental languages or textual criticism ; on the contrary, The 
Bible and Rationalism is addressed to all those who take an intel- 
ligent interest in some of the Biblical questions of the day, but 
are nevertheless unable, of themselves, to solve certain difficulties 
that are made much of by rationalists. The author appears to 
have kept in mind only the wants and wishes of the general 
reader, who is satisfied with getting a notion of the nature and 
contents of each book of the Old and New Testament, of the 
objections that have from time to time been raised against them 
by unbelievers, and of the answers to those objections. 

As we have said, the work does not presuppose on the part of 
its readers either knowledge of physical sciences or of historical 
principles, or acquaintance with Oriental languages or with the 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



ever changing phases of ‘higher criticism/ Nevertheless the 
zealous author has set himself a task of no ordinary difficulty. This 
is evident from the mere statement of the fact that The Bible and 
Bationahsm contains a special introduction to nearly all the 
seventy-two books of Scripture, and a refutation of objections 
made against them. As Father Klein’s exposition covers such a 
wide field, his readers have no right to expect a minute or detailed 
examination of the subjects he treats. 

Of the four volumes into which his work is divided, two are 
devoted to an explanation and defence of the Pentateuch. Vol. I., 
besides giving a summary of the events mentioned in Genesis and 
Exodus, treats of the monotheism of the Hebrews, and also of 
their Levitical priesthood, sacrifices, and feasts. In Vol. IV., 
which, though, for some unexplained reason, is numbered as the 
concluding one, nevertheless is in reality the introductory portion 
of the entire work, there are two ‘ Preliminary Chapters ’ on 
geology &nd geogony respectively, into which a great deal, taken 
from reliable sources, has been compressed. These are followed 
by chapters on ‘ The Mosaic Cosmogony,* ‘ The Hexameron * (in 
which the period theory is advocated 1 ), and five chapters contain- 
ing an explanation and examination of evolution, as originally put 
forward by Darwin, and as systematized in Haeckel’s theory of 

1 The author thus describes his position 

* For us, we adopt the theory of the epochal days, which continues to 
regard Chapter I. of Genesis as historical, but in understanding it in the 
following manner, and in being careful not to exaggerate the concordistic 
accounts between the Biblical cosmogony and geology : — 

' “ The six days of creation,” says H. Renscli (Bibet und Natur ) ** in particular 
does not imply that there has [*tr] been numerically six geological epochs. God 
reveals to us the division of the creation into seven periods only because of the 
unalog) which H«* wished to establish between the divine week of the creatiou 
and the week here below. . . . The essential is that the nunitier seven is pre- 
served. Certainly we have to admit that ihe seventh day of the creation is not 
a day like ours. . . . The important point in this question is the idea of the 
week and that of day.” 

‘There has been a development, an nscen ding progress, in the divine work. 
At first the Creator produced th* elements of matter, as is stated in the first 
verse. The elements afterward [i»>|, by their diverse combinations, formed 
the inorganic and mineral matters ; then successively appeared the plants and 
animals, and finally man. 

4 Genesis, not being a scientific treatise, sketch** only in great traits the 
cosmogony ; it does not enter into details. Consequently, all the attempts 
which have for end to bring into accord the particular points of the geological 
discoveries with the sacred account are purely conjectural. The natural 
sciences show, in the production of the beings, the same ascending gradation as 
Genesis. This is sufficient for us to affirm that there is accord between them, 
as was done by a savant of acknowledged competence and great wisdom, 
M. Barrande.’ 

Digitized by 



Monism. The volume concludes with a review of some of the 
ohief questions in Pentateuchal exegesis. Chapter X. deals with 
some of the problems regarding the state of primitive man and 
the antiquity of the human race ; Chapter XI. treats of the unity of 
mankind ; Chapter XII. of the Noachian deluge ; and Chapter XIII. 
of Biblical chronology. Volume II. contains, in its first section, 
a resume of objections put forward by rationalists against Josue, 
Kings, and some other of the historical books. The second and 
third sections respectively treat of the sapiental and the prophetic 
books. Among the minor prophets, Osee, Jonas, and Zacharias are 
the only ones of whom mention is made, because Father Klein says 
the others do not furnish material for any objection on the part of 
rationalists. The subject of Vol. III. is the New Testament, the 
difficulties in the Gospels and their solution occupying about half 
of it. Father Klein devotes his eighth chapter to the 1 Miracles of 
the Gospels.’ The Epistles and the Apocalypse are finally 
reached, and some objections to their veracity are briefly 
disposed of. 

It would, of course, be impossible to confine within the limits 
of a reasonably-sized book, even the bare enumeration of all the 
faults that unbelievers say they find in Scripture. They are 
innumerable. All that a writer of an apologetic work can do 
is to give samples , and to show their worthlessness. He may be 
thoroughly acquainted with the interpretation of some books 
of Scripture, but as regards that of others he must be content 
to rely more or less on the authority of others, competent scholars 
in their own department. Men who have devoted all their time to 
the study of the Evangelists or of St. Paul cannot be conversant 
with the difficulties of Paralipomenon. Such is the case of those 
who write at first hand. It is equally true of those who endeavour 
to communicate in popular form the results attained by the 
pioneers of exegesis. The writers of whom we speak may acquire 
a fair general knowledge of the Bible, but they can only cull from 
the solutions to exegetical problems those that will be understood 
by the average reader. 

Father Klein wisely keeps to subjects that do not demand any 
profound knowledge. The authorities he quotes most frequently 
are Lavaud de Lestrade, Reusch, Nicolas, Meignan, Vigouroux, 
Lapparent, and Barrande : and the rationalists be chiefly refutes 
are Renan, Strauss, Noldeke, Soury, and Wellhausen. 

It is by no means a pleasant task, yet it is part of a reviewer's 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



duty, to mention some glaring defects in the work. Certain parts 
of it — we refer to the preliminary chapters of Vol. IY. — bristle with 
facts, but the author’s language will not enable a tyro to learn 
much about these results of geological investigation. So many 
things are put before him simultaneously, that his mind is liable 
to be distracted, and all the while there is a notable lack of expla- 
nation. It is taken for granted that all readers will be able to 
estimate for themselves the relative value of geological or other 
theories, and to perceive their respective bearing on the interpre- 
tation of the sacred text. This is assuming too much. A fairly 
adequate exposition of a single question would require one of Father 
Klein’s volumes. Guibert, in his Origines , and Knabenbauer, in his 
Nochmals der biblische Schopfungbericht have shown that they 
understood the necessity of explanation. We notice also some un- 
accountable omissions. Thus, though there is a whole chapter on 
Ecclesiasticus, Father Klein does not tell his readers that about half 
of the original text has been recovered. This, and similar pieces 
of information that might have been given elsewhere, would have 
been interesting and welcome. They serve to show the value of 
the Church’s tradition in such matters. In reading Father Klein’s 
pages we have met countless expressions that are utterly foreign 
to the English language and opposed to its most rudimentary 
rules. They could not even be called * Americanisms.’ At first 
this violation of usage caused surprise, but as we read on it became 
only too evident that Father Klein had paid no regard to the 
language in which he was writing. In his vocabulary, ‘ until ’ is 
the word to express the relation of distance or of magnitude, e.g. 
— * The Primary grounds attain sometimes a thickness of several 
thousand yards ; in North America until 16,000 yards.’ * We find 
it in all heights, until 1,500 yards in Europe and 3,500 yards in 
China.’ Some of his phrases have a German prototype : for in- 
stance, * it goes out ’ to express that a thing is evident, comes from 
‘ es geht aus ,* and 1 to hold a similar language ’ from * cine ahnliche 
Sprache halten .' Such faults in diction, besides wrong collocation 
of words and other blemishes occur repeatedly throughout the 
book. In some places the writer’s disregard of the most necessary 
rules of composition makes his meaning obscure. Thus, on p. 21, 
Vol. IY., where he wishes to say that contrary to an opinion which 
was once held, the red diluvium is not different from the Loess ; 
this is how he says it — * At first they believed to be constituting a 
distinct deposit ; but a more careful inquiry revealed that it is only 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



the result of a superficial alteration of the Loess or alluvions, 
alteration,’ etc. On p. 23, he wishes to explain the 
presence of * blocks ’ on the 1 erratic ground ’ of northern 
Europe ; this is how he explaius it—* The length of the voyage 
travelled by large blocks with intact angles, joint with the pre- 
sence of arctic-marine shells, which they believed of having 
established, caused them to attribute, till lately, these deposits to 
a phenomenon of transport through icebergs across submerged 
plains, etc. 

The book should have been submitted to a careful revision. 
In its present condition it will hardly be of benefit to the cause 
which the author has at heart. B. W. 

Meditations and Exercises for the Illuminative 
Way. By R. P. J. Michael of Coutances, Prior of 
the Grand Chartreuse, and forty-fifth General of the 
Carthusian Order. Translated by Kenelm Digby Best, 
Priest of the Oratory. Dublin : M. H. Gill & Son ; 
London : Burns and Oates. 

There is an old-time flavour of warm, fervid piety, about the 
ten exercises of the Illuminative Way , which compose this little 
volume, that ought to bespeak for them an intelligent curiosity. 
Composed towards the end of the sixteenth century, they reveal 
to us the fact, that a most elaborate system of mental prayer was 
in vogue, at least among some religious communities, at a time 
almost synchronous with that at which the celebrated Spiritual 
Exercises issued from their devout author’s pen in the gloomy 
cave of Manresa. Father John Michael, the author of these 
exercises of the Illuminative Way , was born in Coutances in the 
first part of the sixteenth century. He received the Carthusian 
habit from the Prior of the Paris Chartreuse, became Prior of this 
latter institute later on, and finally succeeded to the Generalship 
of the Grand Chartreuse. It was during his tenure of this high 
office that the present volume was composed. To give an idea of 
the subjects and scope of these Exercises we cannot do better 
than borrow the words of the Preface : — 

* In the exercise of the Passion, which is divided into ten 
Meditations, it is set forth Who and What Christ the Lord is 
Who suffers, For Whom and in What Dispositions, With 
what Manner and Measure of Love, What Eind and what 
Amount of Sufferings, For what Fruit and End He under- 
goes it all. Then follows an especial Exercise of Love, 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



consisting of considerations of the diverse adorable and sweet 
Names of God, and then a most fervent Prayer to obtain the love 
of God, with acts of love. Thirdly, there come Exercises of self- 
denial, and an embracing and carrying of the Cross. Fourthly, is 
added a petition to imitate the virtues of Christ. Fifthly, an 
Imploring of Pardon for all faults and vices contrary to those 
virtues. Lastly, there is an Oblation of the whole Exercise, with 
a Prayer to obtain the fruits and end of our Saviour's Passion.' 

The casual reader will, very likely, find these Exercises dry and 
insipid, but the seeker after closer and more intimate union with 
God will discover in them the soul-sustaining bread of true 
genuine spirituality. {The translator’s work leaves no room for 
cavil. While adhering, in the main, to the author's plan he has, 
by a free and forcible rendering, preserved, in its entirety, the 
spirit of the original. P. M. 

Magister Adest; or, Who is Like Unto God? With 
preface by Rev. Charles Blount, S.J. London : Keegan, 
Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co., Ltd., Paternoster House 
Charing Cross Road. 1900. 

This handsomely got up volume aims at giving us a series of 
meditations on the Life of our Divine Saviour in a purely Scrip- 
tural setting. It may be described as an attempt to emphasize 
and illustrate, by means of apt passages and texts from the Old 
Testament, the principal mysteries and salient features in the 
human life of Christ. The authoress, who modestly withdraws 
her name from the title page, is a religious of the Order of the 
Good Shepherd. Recognising the largely prefigurative character 
of the sacred writings of the Old Law, and realising also 
that our Lord Himself was frequently foreshadowed, in them by 
type and symbol and prophecy, she adopted, in her meditations on 
His earthly life, the practice of dwelling at the same time upon 
those passages from the Old Testament that could be referred, 
even in an accommodated sense, to the subject-matter under her 
immediate consideration. After a time, running concurrently 
with the chief phases of our Saviour’s human life, she had grouped 
together a series of old Scriptural texts to correspond with them. 
Thus, in the meditation on the Sacred Passion we have gathered 
together, with great care and skill, those strikingly beautiful 
passages from the Psalms and Prophets in which the sufferings of 
the God-Man are depicted with a felicity of expression and power 

Digitized by {jOOQle 



of eloquence unsurpassed in the writings of men. This method 
of contemplating our Lord, as it were, in the perspective of the 
ancient Scriptures, our authoress found to be a great stimulus to 
her devotion and a strong incentive to Divine Love. We are sure 
that those into whose hands this little hook may fall, will have a 
similarly joyous experience. Indeed its chaste and touching 
language tends to elevate the thoughts and supernaturalize the 
affections of the soul. 

The book has many other original features. Not the least 
prominent of these is the excellent set of illustrations with which 
it is enriched. These pictures, many of which are after the best 
religious painters of the early centuries, form quite an essential 
part of the volume, being designed to influence and impress the 
faculties of the soul through the eye in th>e same way that music 
operates on them through the ear. 

The publishers have turned out the book in excellent style . 
The paper is good, the type is clear, and the binding durable. 

P. M. . 

The History op the Passion op our Lord Jesus 
Christ. Explained by the Rev. James Groenings, S. J. 
St. Louis, Mo. : B. Herder. 

We extend a sincere welcome to this book, the notice of which 
has been accidentally held over. It deals with tho chief scenes 
of our Lord’s Passion in a way that is remarkably striking and 
direct, and with a thoughtful reflection that shows the piety of the 

Moreover, it is a learned book, full, after the Scriptures, with 
the wisdom of ail the great commentators down to our own time. 
Thus it is a book that may afford anyone most effective spiritual 
reading, while for the student it will possess some interest, as well 
as being of undoubted service to the missionary priest who for 
any purpose addresses himBelf to the study of the Passion. 

J. W. M. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 

**W ChrtoHani Oa et Romani titis." “ As you are children of Christ, so be you children of Rome.** 

Ex Dicta S, PatricU , In Libro Armacano, foL 9. 

The Irish 

Ecclesiastical Record 

& JKotxtfjlg Journal, unOer (Episcopal Sanction. 

NOVEMBER, 1901. [ f 

Lord Iveagh, and other Irish Officers in France 

Very Rev. Patrick Boyle, C.M. , President, Irish College, Paris. 

Dr. Salmon’s ‘ Infallibility ’ 

Very Rev. Dr. Murphy, V.F., Macroom. 

A Handbook of Christian Archaeology 

Rev.J. Hassan, C.C., Bally castle. 

Notes and Queries. 

Theology. Rev. D. Mannix, D.D., Maynooth College. 

The Integrity of Confession. 

Liturgy. Rev. P. O'Leary , D.D*> Maynooth College . 

The Irish Privilege of Anticipation of Matins and Lauds. Marriage Service within the 
* Tempos Clausum.* Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart. Rosary during Ma«. Holy 
Communion in a Private House. 


Correspondence between the Irish Hierarchy and the Local Government Board regarding 
Nuns as Hospital Nurses. Decree Condemning Devotion to the Soul of our Lord. The 
Transmission of the Holy Oils. The Litany of Loretto and Prayers after Mass. 
Changes in the Roman Martyrology. The Feast of St. John Baptist de la Salle. The 
Devotion of the New Cross. The Powers of a Vicar-General. Validity of Dispensations. 
Solution of Various Doubts. 

Notices of Books. 

Concilium Tridentinum Diariorum, Actorum Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova Collectio. 
Roads to Rome. Terra Paterna Vale. Meditations on the Duties of Rr»l«gK» uf , 

Nihil Ohstat, 

Censor Dei* 



Archie}. Dublin*, 
Hibernia* Erin 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


SUBSCRIPTION s Twelve Shilling* Per Annum, Poet Free, Payable in advance 




CAPITAL, £1.600.000. 

INVESTED FUNDS, £886,000. 



Ample Security- Moderate Premiums. I m mediate P aym ent of CZuhuo* 

Liberal Condition t. Large Bonuses,^ 


Prompt Settlement* Moderate Rate* In s pectio ns Fboo. 


Belfast Branch -12, DONEGAL^ SQUARE, NORTH. Cork— Si, SOUTH MAIL, 


Private Residence for Cure of Excessive Use of / 

Ipeo/a/ Treatment for. Alcoholic Diseases has been 
in Glasgow sine* August, 1898 ; in DUBLIN since August. 1899 . 

Duration of Treatment-THREE WEEKS ONLY. 

T erms end nil infor mati o n furnished by the Manager or Secretary, 




All communications strictly private' 


By every 


Prices from 

£10 to 300 Guineas* 

By every 

Prices from 

6 to aoo Gnini 

Prices from 

5 to 150 Guineas. 


Applied to all Instruments 
from 10/- per Month. 







Carriages, Ralll Carts , 

Polo Carts, and Outside 
Cars made & repaired . 


eferences to Clergymen 

IN PARIS, FROM 1684 TO 1710 

I N a collection of miscellaneous papers, 1 in the Mazarin 
Library in Paris, there is preserved a list of Irish 
officers, who were educated in the College des Grassins, 
between .1684 and 1710. The names of these gallant 
Irishmen will doubtless be interesting to many in Ireland ; 
and the object of the present paper is to rescue them from 
oblivion. But first an account of the College des Grassins 
must be given ; and how it came to be the residence of Irish 
students must be explained. 

In Felibien’s history of Paris, 2 there is an official report 
of a visitation of the College des Grassins, made by order of 
the University, in 1708, and ratified by the Parliament 
of Paris, in 1710. From that document authentic informa- 
tion may be gathered with respect to the foundation and 
discipline of the College, as well as concerning the residence 
of Irish students in it. 

The College des Grassins was founded by the will of 
Pierre Grassin, Lord of Ablon, in 1569. The liberality of 
Thierry Grassin, brother, and of Pierre Grassin, son of the 

1 JUceuil dti PiZees, A. 10,816. 

4 SUtoire da la Villa de Pari a, vol. iii., pp. 687-689. 


Digitized by 




founder, augmented the original endowment. 1 The College 
was incorporated in the University of Paris, and was 
subject to the authority of the Archbishop of 8ens, who by 
the act of foundation was named Provisor. Under the 
Provisor it was governed by a Principal. The College was 
one of plein exercice, and had a staff of professors of its own. 
The course of studies extended from the lowest class of 
grammar to philosophy, inclusive. 

From October to Easter the students rose at 5.30 ajn. ; 
and at 5.45 they assembled for morning prayers. From 
Easter to vacation they rose at 5.0, and met for prayers at 
5.15. At 7.15 they assisted at Mass. Dinner was served at 
11 a.m., and supper at 6 p.m., except on fast days when the 
time of those repasts was half an hour later. 

Each evening, after class, the students visited the chapel, 
and sang the Salve Regina, or another antiphon, in honour 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the season, and the 
antiphon, Da pacem, with its appropriate prayer. They also 
recited the De Profundis, for the souls of the deceased 
founders and benefactors of the College. At 8.45 p.m. night 
prayer was said, after which the door was locked and the 
keys deposited with the Principal. 

On Sundays High Mass was celebrated at 7.30, and the 
Principal preached after the Gospel. On festivals High 
Mass was chanted, but without a sermon. Vespers on 
Sundays and festivals were sung at 6.16 p.m. On Fridays 
the antiphon, Domine non secundum peccata, etc., was sung 
at Mass. 

Each year three greater obits were celebrated, consisting 
of an office of nine lessons, and a Requiem Mass with 
deacon, sub-deacon, and cope bearers. Twelve lesser obits, 
one on the first Monday of each month, were also celebrated 
with Mass and an office of three lessons. The Principal 
was charged to see that the students approached the 

1 The College was situated in ruedes Sept Voies, now rue Valette, near the 
Ptt'itheoD. On the oppoaite side of the street stood the old pariah church of St. 
Hilaire da Mont, which has disappeared. At the distance of a few paces stood 
the Lombard College. The rue ae 1’ Kcole Polytechnique, where it meets the rue 
Valette and the ruo dee Cannes, passes through the site of old Colldge dee 

Digitized by {jOOQle 


Sacraments from time to time. The professors were obliged 
to attend tbe offices in the chapel, and were exhorted, if 
competent, to join in the chant. In what concerned the 
periods for the opening and close of class, as well respecting 
vacant days, they were directed to conform to the usages 
of the College and the statutes of the University. 

But it may be asked, how did it come to pass that 
Irishmen were to be found amongst the students at the 
College des Grassins ? The College, as already stated, 
was one of plein exercice , and its lecture halls were open 
to extern pupils. Irishmen attended it for lectures in 
philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 
From Lynch’s manuscript 1 lives of the Bishops of Ireland 
we gather, that Dr. Molony, Bishop of Killaloe, before his 
consecration in 1630, gave lectures at the Grassins’ College. 
In 1763 the Provisors of Lombard College stated, in a 
petition to the University, that the priests of that estab- 
lishment had from time immemorial attended the classes 
at the Grassins in philosophy. But for some years, between 
1684 and 1710, not only were there Irishmen among 
the extern pupils, but a little colony of Irishmen was 
resident in the College itself. 

Dr. Patrick Maginn, one of the restorers of the Lombard 
College, died in 1683. By his will he bequeathed a sum of 
ten thousand livres* for the general benefit of the estab- 
lishment he had done so much to found. Moreover, he 
bequeathed an annual sum of two thousand five hundred 
livres, invested in the ( aides et gabel les/ and payable at the 
Hotel de Ville of Paris, for the education of students. This 
bequest was subject to an annual pension of five hundred 
livres, payable to his aged mother, nee Catherine MacDonnell, 
during her life. The testator was sixty-four years of age at 
tbe date when he made his will. But neither age, nor the 

* Joannes autam Btudiorum Theologioor am stadia tandem permenana, 
Aureliam, peatePariaios infestante, oonoeeait ; inde post animum juiinprudentii 
non ten niter tinotnm, Pariaios revenue, ad discipuloe philosophies diadplinia 
in Collegio Beoediano, et Graasano ex* olendoe curam vertit. Poetea Pariaiia 
din moratua, liber&lem a* cum aliis turn praecipue popularibna snis praebuit, ac 
nominatim iia adoleacentibna qui ad litteraa oapeeaendaa animum ad junxerunt ; 
militiam quoqne oecutis crebro subreniena. — MS., p. 836. 

* A liyre was equal in value to a franc. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



atmosphere of coarts, nor zeal for religion had rendered 
him insensible to the daties of filial piety. He directed 
that after the death of his mother the whole sum of two 
thousand five hundred livres should be devoted to the 
education of students. 

Relatives of the testator, of the families of Maginn, 
Magenta, O’Neill, and White, were to be preferred to all 
others. Next to these were to come natives of the dioceses 
of Down and Dromore, and in defect of these, natives of the 
province of Ulster. The relations of the founder had the 
right of presentation, and failing these, the Bishops of 
Down and Dromore. The Prior and Council of St. Victor s 
in Paris were appointed trustees, and were charged to fulfil 
their trust according to the advice of the Provisor for 
Ulster at the Irish College. 

The testator directed that there should be two categories 
of students on the foundation, one consisting of priests, and 
the other of junior students ; and he expressed a desire 
that, as far as possible, the number of the latter should be 
doable that of the former. But it is evident from the terms 
of his will that his intention was to provide for the educa- 
tion of ecclesiastics. It is thus expressed : — 

The said testator having seriously and with sorrow considered 
the pitiable state of ecclesiastics and of the people in the kingdom 
of Ireland, and especially in the province of -Ulster, in which he 
was born, where heresy increases every day for want of learned 
ecclesiastics, who are fewer in that province than in any other, 
since they have no establishment in other Catholic countries, nor 
any refuge or assistance like the other provinces of Ireland ; the 
said testator desiring as far as in him lies to provide a remedy 
thereunto, whereby poor souls and the Church may be succoured 
by persons of learning, gives and bequeaths to the Lombard 
College, etc., etc. 

He did not indeed require that the vocation of the junior 
students should have been already decided ; but he directed 
that 4 if any of tbe bursars, after their studies in philosophy, 
do not desire to become priests, they shall be dismissed by 
the Sieurs of St. Victor’s,’ etc. 

At the time of Dr. Maginn’s death, the Lombard 
College was exclusively reserved for priests. It was fonnd, 

Digitized by 



therefore, necessary to place the junior students in some 
other college, and in 1696 a formal contract was entered into 
between the Principal of the College des Grassins and the 
Prior of St. Victor’s, in virtue of which the Maginn Bursars 
were admitted to reside in that college. Here they continued 
to reside until 1710. The Rev. Charles Magenis, Provisor 
for Ulster at the Lombard College, watched over their 
interests, and Evaristus Magenis acted as their procurator. 
Meanwhile the Lombard College was by royal authority 
thrown open to junior students, as well as to priests, 1 
and the Prior of St. Victor’s presented a petition to the 
University asking to have the Maginn Bursars sent 

At this time the College des Grassins became financially 
embarrassed. Considerable debts had accumulated, and the 
capital of the foundation had been drawn upon. To provide 
a remedy for this state of things, a Visitatiou of the College 
was made by order of the University. Dr. Pirot, Chancellor 
of the University and of the Church of Paris, and Edmund 
Pourchet, ex-rector of the University, were the Visitors. 
After a careful investigation of the state of the College, they 
recommended that the burses should be suspended until all 
debts were paid. When this was effected, they directed that 
a partial suspension ol the burses should be maintained 
until the capital of the foundation had been replaced ; and 
when the financial prosperity of the College was restored, 
they recommended that a fixed sum should be reserved 
annually to meet the cost of repairs and other unusual 
expenses. They further recommended that the Procurator, 
who was non-resident, should be replaced by a person who 
would reside in the College. The new Procurator was 
forbidden to make any extraordinary outlay beyond the 
amount of thirty livres, without a written order signed by 
the Principal and by the Senior Bursar. The Principal him- 
self was ordered not to expend beyond the amount of three 
hundred livres without the written approval of the Provisor, 
the Archbishop of SenB. 

The Visitors examined also the contract entered into 

1 See The Irish College in Paris , 1578 to 1901, p. SO. 

Digitized by AjOoqL e 



with the trastees of the M&ginn Bursars, and inspected the 
apartments occupied by them. They reported that the 
aforesaid contract was prejudicial to the College, partly on 
account of incompatibility of dispositions, which disturbed 
discipline, and hindered good ; and partly on account of its 
financial aspect. The apartments occupied by the Irish 
students bad formerly produced a rent higher by one-third 
than they paid. An outlay, too, upon them was imminent 
for the repairs of a wall that had suffered at the hands of the 
Irish. In consequence the Visitors recommended that the 
request of the Prior of St. Victor’s should be granted, and 
that the Irish students should be sent to the Lombard 
College. The report of the Visitors was dated 2nd March, 
] 708, and was ratified by a decree of the Parliament of Paris 
on 4th May, 1710. 1 

At this juncture a demand was made on the Maginn 
foundation for the payment of taxes to the amount of over 
one thousand livres. The Bursars petitioned for an 
exemption from the tax. In support of their appeal they 
presented a statement, giving the names of students educated 
on the foundation, who had embraced a military career. 
They enumerated the rank they held, the services they 
had rendered to France, and the battles in which they 
fought or fell. That document, which is here given in the 

1 En troisi&me lieu, quant k co qui touche le contract d’association den 
Irlandois au College des Grassins, du 22 Mara 1696, nous fotimons qu’il eet 
tout k fait contraire auz droits et usages do runirfcrsitt, et trto prejudiciable 
au dit college tant pour l’incompatibiUtg des hmueura qui troublent entidrement 
la discipline, et qui empgsohent que le bicn ne se fosse, que par la l&fon Inorme 
qu'il cause an temporal du dit College dee Grassins, qui estant dlja fort ob£r€, 
a ranee beauooup sa ruine totals par le dit contract, d’association : partant noire 
aria est qu'attendu qni le dit oontract a 6t6 fait trta l£g£rement par le feu 
Sienr Framery principal sans appeler l'universitfe ; et pour profiter de quelques 
leg&res sommes presentee dont il arait besoin dans le desordre de ses affaires au 
grand detriment du dit college qui apr&i de grasses depends pour hangmen tation 
et amelioration du oorps de logia ha bite par les dits Irlandois en tiro pr6s d’un tiers 
moins qu’il ne faisait auparavant ; et qui so voit encore & la veille d'estre oblige de 
r jfaire uu gros mur qui s'endomtnago be iucoup par lee immondioes et autree 
dfcgats dos dits Irlandois: il y a lieu d’ordonner que oonformemeot aux intentions 
du Sieur Maginn exprimees dans son testament dn 3 Juillet 1682, et & la 
demaude des Sieurs Frieura et chambre de St. Victor oonteniie dans leur 
request' , montionnta cydessus, les dits Irlandois seront renvoyes dans le College 
des Lombards, sauf k leur restituer, si le oas y 6chet, les impenses utiles faites 
par eux dans le corps de logia par eux habitl dans le dit college. — Felibien, 
vol. iii. pp. 687-9. 

Digitized by 


language and in the form in which it was drawn up, is as 
follows : — 

Exact et Veritable 

du nombre des Officiers Irlandois qui ont 6U 6lcv&z duns la Fonda - 
Hon de feu VAbbA Patrice Maginn , depuis V etablissement de cette 
fondation sous la protection de Messieurs de St, Victor , en Vannte 
1684, pour des jeunes itudians Irlandois de famille , qui ont esti 
naturalize et Stablis au ColUge des Grassins , par Lettres Patentee 
da Boy homologates en Parlement en 1696 jusqu'a Vannte courante 

Outre plusieurs Pritres qui en sont sortis pour le Mission 
d'lrlandc . 

Roger Magenis Vicomte dTveah, ancien Pair d’lrlande, lequel 
apres avoir servi le Roy pendant quelques annees dans le Regi- 
ment Irlandois de Leo et en suite dans celui de Dillon mourut en 
Espagne au mois de Septembre 1709. Son fr&re aine Bernard 
Magenis Vicomte dTveah, mort sans enfans, leva un regiment 
dTnfanterie pour le service de son Roy legitime en Irlanae & y 
epousa la bile ain6e du Comte de Clanricard soeur de feiie Madame 
la Duchesse de Berwick, niece de Mylord Moncassell, Lieutenant 
General 'des Armees du Roy, mort de ses blessures recftes au 
service de sa Majeste, & petite ni£ce du feu due d'Ormond. 
Arthur Magenis Vicomte dTveah, oncle de ces deux Seigneurs, 
et p&re de Madame de Lee, epouse de Monsieur de Lee, Lieutenant 
General, et Commandeur de l'ordre de S. Loiiis, mena en France 
pendant la minorite du Roy un Regiment dTnfanterie de quinze 
cans hommee. 

Antoine Oneill, pr£sentement Lieutenant Colonel du Regiment 
Irlandois de L6e. 

Louis Oneill, fr&re du dit ^ Antoine, Capitaine, au meme Regi- 
ment : leur frere Constantin Oneill mourut Capitaine au Regiment 
de Frustemberg en 1685 des blessures qu’il avait re^es au si&ge de 
Girone apr&s trente ans de service, et avoir refus^ plut6t que de 
quitter le service de la France, le titre de Comte de Tyrone, avec 
la pension y attaches en Espagne, qu’avait eu feu son frdre. 

Roger Magenis, fils de Bernard Magenis Chevalier, Lieutenant 
Colonel du Regiment dTnfanterie Irlandoise de Galmoy, est 
actuellement officier au Regiment de Galmoy apr&s avoir eu 
Thonneur d’etre Page du Roy. 

Jean Magenis, Lieutenant dans le Regiment de lAe, 

Arthur Magenis, frdre du dit Jean, Enseigne dans le memo 
Regiment : leur pere Maurice Magenis apr&s avoir 6te gouvemeur 
de Keury en Irlande, riche en fonds de terre, & fort consid6r$ de 
son Roy, & de ses compatriotes pour ses services fut tu4 k 
l'affaire de Spire en 1692. 

Autre Arthur Magenis; fils de feu sieur Magenis, Ecuyer de le 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



Heine d’Angleterre ; Chevalier de l’ordre de S. Louis, et C&pit&ine 
dans la Brigade d’officiers detaches du Regiment de L6e. 

Autre Arthur Magenis, neveu du dit Sieur Ecuyer, Capitaine 
dans la m£me Brigade : ces deux officiers out eu des graces de la 
Cour pour avoir bien fait leur devoir au Siege de l’lsle & sont 
actuellement de la garnison qui defend Poiiay. 

Edme Magenis, Enseigne dans le Regiment de Lee, mort au 
service du Roy en Italie, son pore Arthur Magenis, Capitaine au 
Regiment de My lord Magenis, fut tue a la bataille d’Agbrim eu 

Daniel Magenis, Capitaine duns ledit Regiment de Magenis fut 
tu6 k la meme bataille. 

Gelase Magenis, Lieutenant dans le Regiment de L6e. 

Henry Oneill, Capitaine dans le Regiment d'lnfanterie Irlan- 
doise d’OBrien, oy-devant de Clare. 

Daniel Oneill, Capitaine dans le Regiment d’lnfanterie 
Irlandoise d’Athlone ; mourut au service du Roy en Italie ; son 
fr6re Tullius Oneill, Cadet dans le R^g’ment Royal d’lrlande 
Infanterie, fut tu6 en Angleterre, en voulant avec d’autres 
Irlandois forcer un batiment pour passer en France. 

Bernard Oneill, Lieutenant au service du Roy d’Espagne ; son 
fr&re est mort Cadet au Regiment Irlandois de Dorrington ; leur 
pure Hugo Oneill et leur oncle Felix Oneill, l’un Lieutenant- 
Colonel, l’autre Colonel, ont ete tuez k la bataille d’Aghrim. 

Felix Cneill, Lieutenant dans lo Regiment d’lnfanterie 
Irlandoise d’Oneill, dit Cbarlemont, mort en Allemagne. 

Henry White, Lieutenant dans le Regiment de L4e, tue a la 
bataille ae Hoes ted.’ 

Jacques Maginn, pr6sentemcnt Capitaine au dit Regiment de 

Edme MacDermott, Capitaine au Regftnent de Galmoy, et 
ayde de camp le Monsieur de Chevalier de Maulevrier, mort en 

Bernard Oneill, Cornette dans le Regiment des dragons de 
Mabony, fut tue en Espagne, et son frere Capitaine dans le 
Regiment de Bourk tue k Cremone. 

Outre les s usd its officiers , il y a cu cV a utres j cuncs gcntilshammes 
tlevez dans cette fondation qui ant porte les urines cot nine Cadets , 
et qui sont morts dans le service , la pi Apart tutz dans les occasions 
de la prison te et dcr nitre guerre . 

Ceux qui occupcnt prtsentement les bourses sont : 

Maurice Magenis, tils d’un autre Maurice Magenis. Capitaine, 
tue au service du Roy comni^ il est mentionne au sixieme article 
de ce memoire. 

Christophle Russell, fils de Nicolas Russell, Capitaine au 
Regiment ae Galmoy. tue a la bataille de Cassano. 

1 Known iu English history as the Battle of Blenheim. — P. B. 

Digitized by 



Patrice OLavery, fils d’ Arthur OLavery fcue a l’affaire de 

Bernard Burne. 

Deux ecclesiastic ues qui etudient pour se rendre capables 
d’aller k la Mission alrlande a l’example des autres bons pretres 
qui ont ete elevez dans cette fondation. 

Ce detail qu’on peut justifier par le temoignage de la Cour 
d’Angleterre, & par le certificat de Messieurs de St. Victor, 
qui tiennent Registre de Tentr^e et de la sortie desdits boursiers 
fait bien voir quo feu l’Abbe Patrice Maginn en faisant cette 
fondation des deniers qu’il avait apporte d’Angleterre ou il avait 
6te longtemps premier aumonier de la Reine, Spouse de Charles II., 
avait intention de faire une petite pepini&re de Missionaires et 
d’Officiers Irlandois; ses bonnes intentions ont ete fidelement 
suivies, et ces Boursiers ont parfaitement bien rempli les devoirs 
de leurs etats differcnts, les Eoclesiastiques ont tous hazarde pour 
aller a la Mission d’lrlande ou les Catholiques persecutez ont 
be3oin de pareil seours & les officiers ont verse leur sang dans 
les occasions, & merite la protection & les graces du Roy, 
tant par leurs services personels que par ceux de leurs families 
& proches parens ; ils n’ont rien au monde pour leur entretien 
que des rentes constitutes sur l'Hotel de Ville par un Ecclesias- 
tique leur Coinpatriote & seul Bienfaiteur ; ces rentes ne sont 
point sujettes k des taxes. Tout cela cependant n’a pu mettre 
cette jeunesse etrangere, Catholique, & afTectionnee, k l’abri de 
l’avidite d'un Partisan, qui a surpris un Arr6t du Conseil pour 
leur faire paler une taxe de Mille livres avec les deux sols par 

Ils supplient trts humblement Monseigneur DesMarais de leur 
accorder l'honneur de sa protection aupres du Roy afin qu’il plaise 
a Sa Majeste d’ordonner qu’ils soient dechargez d’uno imposition 
si in juste, si contraire k sa bonte & meme u son service, et que le 
Partisan et ses Cautions soient contraints meme par Corps, de 
rendre & restituer ce qu’ils ont touche pour cette taxe des Payeurs 
des rentes sur PHotel de Ville. 

What was the result of this appeal we have not ascer- 

The College des Grassins continued to exist down to the 
dissolution of the University of Paris in 1793. But after 
1710 the Maginn Bursars resided at the Lombard College, 
which, in the eighteenth century, besides priests, had a sec- 
tion for junior students. The loss of documents has made 
it impossible to continue the list of the Maginn Bursars after 
1710. That foundation was the only one for the education 

Digitized by CjOoqIc 



of students for the dioceses of Down and Dromore. In the 
eighteenth century the Most Rev. John Armstrong, Most 
Rev. Hugh McMullan, and Most Rev. Patrick McMullan, 
Bishops of Down, and Most Rev. Matthew Lennon, Bishop 
of Dromore, were, doubtless, students on this foundation. 
In 1785, when Rev. James O’Coigly claimed one of the 
Maginn burses, two priest6 — Rev. John McAlister of 
Dromore, and Rev. Edward McMullen of Down — were in 

After the Revolution the Most Rev. Edward Maginn, 
Coadjutor of Derry, is said to have been a student on this 
foundation from 1823 to 1825. 1 At the present time there 
are many priests in the dioceses of Down and Conor and of 
Dromore, who were educated on the same foundation. 

But the foregoing list of officers has more than a local 
interest. It shows that the policy of those bishops who relied 
less on junior students for a supply of clergy than upon such 
as had received orders before proceeding to France, was not 
unreasonable. More than this, the foregoing document is, 
as it were, the history of the period in miniature. It recalls 
the time when the Catholic Lords of Iveagh and of Tyrone 
ranked with the nobles of France and Spain, and when the 
flower of the Catholic youth of Ireland fought and died on 
the battlefields of Spain and Italy, Austria and France. 
Two centuries have since elapsed, and it is encouraging to 
note that, in spite of persecution, the names of Russell and 
O’Neil), Magenis and Maginn, are still borne by Ulstermen, 
some of whom, as ecclesiastics, are as zealous as Dr. Maginn, 
Abbot of Thuley ; and others, as laymen, are as loyal to the 
faith of their fathers as the gallant men who fought and fell 
at Aughrim, Hochstaedt, and Cremona. 

Patrick Boyle, c.m. 

1 See Memoirs of the Bishops of Derry, by Rev. James McLaughlin, P.P., 
p. 74. 

Digitized by AjOOQle 

[ 395 ] 



* rriHERE is nothing new,* we are told, ‘ under the sun ; * 
I and certainly there is nothing in Dr. Salmon’s 
controversial lectures calculated to bring this old saying 
into doubt. He goes along the beaten path ; he exhibits 
the old stock-in-trade of Protestant disputants ; he repeats 
calumnies that have been a thousand times refuted; and 
all this with an air of confidence, with an assumption of 
learning, that are not warranted by his lectures. The 
Doctor seems to think that he is a champion specially raised 
up to battle with Rome, that in his lectures he is striking a 
decisive blow at the whole Roman Bystem. When, in his 
first lecture, he was unfolding his general programme of 
attack on us, he said : * I hold that it is unworthy of any 
man who possesses knowledge to keep his knowledge to 
himself, and rejoice in his own enlightenment, without 
making any effort to bring others to share in his privileges 1 
(page 7). And after making this modest profession of 
superior knowledge, the Regius Professor pledges himself 
not 1 to shrink from a full and candid examination of the 
Roman claims * (page 8). Dr. Salmon has not redeemed his 
pledge. He has misrepresented the Roman claims very 
grossly and very frequently, but he has not examined them 
— indeed, he seems to be incapable of examining them — 
and bis pompous profession of superior knowledge is borne 
out only by puerile platitudes, which bis students could have 
read for themselves in the leaflets that are scattered broad- 
cast by the Church Mission agents, or could have heard 
from any ordinary street preacher. When such is the 
erudition displayed by the University Professor it is not 
difficult to gauge the knowledge which his students imbibe. 

It is' safe, however, to say that Rome shall survive 
such assailants. Here is a specimen of Dr. Salmon’s 
arguments against us, which will be at once recognised as 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



an old acquaintance by anyone even slightly familiar with 
Protestant controversial literature — the argument in a circle, 
the vicious circle. He told his students that we can give no 
proof of the doctrine of Infallibility 4 without being guilty 
of the logical fallacy of arguing in a circle’ (page 53). 

‘ They say the Church is infallible because the Scriptures 
testify that she is so ; and the Scriptures testify this because 
the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning ' 
(page 54). In other words, according to Dr. Salmon, 
Catholics prove the Church by the Bible, and the Bible by 
the Church — a vicious circle, ‘a petitio principii in the most 
outrageous form ' (page 59). Now, if one of Dr. Salmon’s 
students were to ask him bow Catholics proved the Church 
for the first hundred years of her existence, one would be 
curious to know what answer the Regius Professor would 

The Church could not then be proved by the Bible, 
for the Bible was not in existence. The Church existed 
before the Bible ; it was fully established and widely 
diffused, its claims were recognised, before the Bible, as 
we have it, came into existence. And, therefore, for that 
century, the Church was not proved by the Bible. 
Now, if the Church could be proved without the Bible 
for the first century of her life, why may not she be 
equally proved for the second century, and for the third, 
and for every century up to the present ? If there has been 
an essential change in the mode of proof, will the Doctor 
say when the change was made, and by what authority. 
Again, if he were asked why Catholics should not be allowed 
to draw a logical conclusion from his own doctrine, what 
would he answer ? He admits the Bible to be the inspired 
Word of God, infallibly true. If, then, the Infallibility of the 
Church be conclusively proved from the Bible, Dr. Salmon 
is bound to admit that doctrine, and he cannot take refuge 
in the allegation of a vicious circle to save himself from the 
logical consequences of his own teaching. Whether the 
Catholic proof of tbe Inspiration of Scripture be logical or 
illogical, Dr. Salmon bolds tbe doctrine, and he is, therefore, 
bound to admit all that it certainly contains. If the Bible 

Digitized by 




prove the Church for Catholics Dr. Salmon is bound to 
admit it, no matter how Catholics prove the Bible. But 
there is no need of having recourse to an argumentum ad 
hominem to dispose of Dr. Salmon’s fallacy; and if his 
students had thus questioned him he could give no satis- 
factory answer. But there was no danger of bis being put 
to the test — no risk of any awkward cross-examination. To 
Dr. Salmon’s students an attack on the Catholic Church 
was honey, and there was no fear of any scrutiny as to the 
logic in which the attack was conveyed. The Doctor and 
his students are in reality in a vicious circle, hemmed in 
by prejudices and self-interest ; they have not the slightest 
intention of going out of it, and the Professor’s concern 
was to find some flimsy pretext for remaining within 
that circle. * Great efforts have,’ he says, 4 been made by 
Roman Catholic divines to clear their mode of procedure 
from the charge of logical fallacy, but in the nature of 
things such efforts must be hopeless ’ (page 55). That 
Dr. Salmon should be ignorant of what Catholic divines 
say on this matter is quite natural ; but surely he ought to 
know something of what Protestant divines say regarding 
it. And he will find Palmer, one of his most respectable 
divines saying, in his treatise on the Church (vol. ii. page 63), 
that in our argument there is no fallacy at all ; and as 
Palmer’s book is dedicated to the Protestant Archbishops of 
Canterbury and Armagh it may be taken as agreeable to 
Irish as well as to English Protestants. Mr. Palmer tells 
the divinity students at Oxford that there is no vicious circle 
in a process which Dr. Salmon tells the Trinity men is one 
4 of a most outrageous form.’ Can it be that the arguments 
which the Oxford students would have scouted, are con- 
sidered quite good enough for the alumni of the ‘silent 
sister ’ ? The Doctor says, 4 Since this lecture was delivered 
a Roman Catholic Bishop (Clifford) has attempted ... to 
meet the difficulty here raised ’ (page 55). One would fancy 
from this that Dr. Salmon was not aware of any answer* to 
the 4 difficulty,’ before the attempt, attributed to Dr. Clifford. 

This shows how little he knows of the subject on which 
he is lecturing. The alleged 4 difficulty ’ was frequently 

Digitized by 




answered ; long before Dr. Salmon was born it was 
answered it any ordinary treatise on the Church, and 
answered, too, just as it is by Dr. Clifford. And Dr. Salmon 
does not even attempt to meet that answer. He says of 
Dr. Clifford that ‘ he brings out the infallibility of the 
Church as the result of a long line of argument The 
doctrine which is wanted for the foundation of the building 
is with him the coping-stone of the structure 1 (page 57). 
Now what is the meaning or use of a good argument except 
to bring out, as a conclusion, the truth to be proved? 
If, instead of bringing out that truth, ‘ as a result of a 
long line of argument/ Dr. Clifford had laid it down as 
‘ a foundation,’ then there would have been room for 
Dr. Salmon’s declamation. But to censure him for proving 
his doctrine instead of taking it for granted is Bimple non- 
sense; and Dr. Salmon must have thought his students 
fools when he made such a ridiculous statement to them. 
The answer given by Dr. Clifford to the imaginary difficulty 
is merely a repetition of what Catholic theologians have 
frequently said, and it is quite sufficient for its purpose. 
The New Testament is used as historical evidence to show, 
as other historical documents also show, that our Lord 
lived on earth for a time ; that He declared Himself to be 
the Son of God, and justified His declaration by extraordi- 
nary signs ; that He established a religious society of a 
certain character, and for a certain end ; that He commis- 
sioned a certain number of men to continue after His own 
death the work of the society so established. And this 
historical fact, established by the New Testament, is con- 
firmed by the writings of early fathers, and by some pagan 
writers also. 

Now, from this fact, thus historically established, we 
infer that, since Christ was God, and founded a Church 
for a certain purpose,— to teach truth— and since He 
sent men to carry out this purpose, He would not have 
allowed them, in the execution of their work, to depart from 
the plan which He had laid down- They must continue to 
teach the truth. In other words, the Divine authority of 
the Church follows immediately from the fact, historically 

Digitized by 




established^ that a Divine Person founded the Church, with 
a certain character, and for a definite purpose. Historical 
evidence of this fact is given by the New Testament as well 
as by other writings. Now, the value of the New Testament 
as a historical record is not taken from the Church. Its 
reliability as a history is calculated in the same way as that 
of Livy or Tacitus. The Church is proved on the historical 
authority of the New Testament, but the historical authority 
of the New Testament is not proved from the Church, and, 
therefore, there is no vicious circle. But whilst the New 
Testament has the character of an historical record, it has 
also the much higher character of an inspired record. The 
historical character is altogether independent of the inspira- 
tion. It neither presupposes nor involves inspiration, and 
the inspiration, which can only be proved from the Church, 
is not taken into account at all in proving the Church itself. 
Therefore there is no trace of a vicious circle in the process 
of proof. And Dr. Salmon himself seems to feel this, for 
he does not even attempt to examine the argument. He 
sayB : * But this is not the time to examine the goodness of 
Bishop Clifford’s argument ; that will come under discussion 
at a later stage ’ (page 57). It would seem to be just the 
time to examine it when he introduced it. But for reasons 
that are quite intelligible he deferred the matter, promising 
that it would 4 come under discussion * later on ; but he 
conveniently forgot his promise, and it does not 4 come on 
for discussion.’ We hear no more of it in the lectures. 

Now, though this is a more than sufficient answer to 
Dr. Salmon’s clumsy quibble, it is not our only one, nor 
our principal one. The argument of the first century is 
valid still in favour of the unchanged and unchangeable 
Church of God. She did not appeal to the New Testament 
then to prove her authority ; she need not appeal to it 
now. And she would have been all that she is even though 
a line of it had not been written. Incessu patuit Dea is true 
of her. She bears on her brow the marks of her Divine 
origin. She exhibits her Divine commission to teach the 
nations as conspicuously now, and as unmistakably, as she 
did in the days of the Apostles ; and on that ground she 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



claims to be heard and obeyed. And Dr. Salmon cannot be 
ignorant of this claim of hers, for he gives it in his Appendix 
amongst the Acts of the Vatican Council. * Nay, more, the 
Church herself, because of her wonderful propagation, her 
extraordinary sanctity, her inexhaustible richness in all good 
things, her Catholic unity, and her indomitable strength, 
supplies a great and unfailing motive of credibility, and 
an indisputable proof of her Divine mission.’ This is 
the Church’s argument in her own words. She is her 
own argument, her own witness, and she needs no other. 
From the day of her institution the devil and the 
world conspired to overthrow her. Not content with 
crucifying her Founder, the Jews persecuted the Apostles 
and first Christians, and banished them away, only to carry 
the knowledge of saving faith to other nations. Persecu- 
tions the most cruel known to human history raged against 
the Church for nearly three centuries, and Christian blood 
was shed like rain, but it became the seed of Christianity. 
The heroism of Christian martjrs, the sanctity of their lives, 
their love even for their enemies, confounded and bewildered 
the pagan world, and was a standing and convincing 
argument of the truth and power of the Christian faith. 
And before that power Paganism fell back defeated, and its 
expiring cry was that of Julian the Apostate : * Galilean, thou 
hast conquered.’ The extraordinary spread of the Christian 
faith in the face of such difficulties, its absolute unity not- 
withstanding its wide diffusion, its sanctifying influence on 
the lives of those who embraced it, its victories over all that 
earth and hell could raise up against it; — this was the argu- 
ment of the early Church which made even pagans to feel 
like the magicians before Pharoah. ‘Verily the finger of 
God is here.* 

And this is the great argument of the Church tb-day, 
as Dr. Salmon must know, for he gives it in his book. 
And where does he find in it any grounds for his ridiculous 
charge of vicious circle — proving the Church from the Bible, 
and the Bible from the Church ? He knew well that his 
silly charge is groundless, and hence it is that instead of ‘ a 
full and candid examination of the Boman claims,' he gives 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



his students a ridiculous caricature. He panders to their 
prejudices, deepens their ignorance instead of removing it, 
and he sends out his militant theologians to assail us in 
absolute ignorance of our lines of attack or defence. Here 
is his version to his theologians of ‘the Roman claims 1 
given in an imaginary dialogue between himself and the 
Pope. 4 “ You must believe everything I say,” demands the 
Pope. " Why should we ? ” we inquire. “ Well, perhaps I 
cannot give you any quite convincing reason ; but just try it. 
If you trust me with doubt or hesitation, I make no promise ; 
but if you really believe everything I say, you will find — that 
you will believe everything I say ' ” (page 59). And so this is 
the outcome of the full and candid examination of the Roman 
claims; this is Protestant divinity as taught in Trinity 
College, and by its Regius Professor ; this is the theological 
training of those who are expected to pull down Roman 
domination in Ireland ! The task should be an easy one if 
their Professor be correct. But time will tell them. 

Any one who reads Dr. Salmon’s book, will not be 
surprised at the extravagance of anything he says against 
Catholics ; but no one can cease to be surprised, and amazed, 
that, even he should exhibit on a serious subject such levity 
and such folly ; should make such ridiculous statements in 
presence of any body of young men who have come to the age 
of understanding. If Dr. Salmon would only set before his 
young men one genuine Papal document— say the Bull 
Ineffabilis of Pius IX., the Encyclical on the Scriptures of 
Leo XIII., or the chapter De Justificatione impU of the 
Council of Trent — and let them analyze it, they would 
soon learn to discount their Professor’s version of Papal 
documents, and learn also the nature of the work before them 
in the ‘controversy with Rome’ much more accurately than 
from all the rhetoric of their Professor. Or, if they require 
mental exercise to prepare them for their assault on us, let 
them take the argument of the Vatican Council, given above, 
as the ground of the 4 Roman claims.’ And that argument has 
a sequel which is respectfully submitted for Dr. Salmon’s 
consideration. It is this : When the persecuted Church 
emerged from the catacombs to take possession of the 
vol. x. 2 c 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



throne of the Cffisars, she found the world as dangerous a 
friend as it had been a dangerous and determined enemy. 
Kings soon began to fight for her treasures ; worldliness 
crept in amongst her children ; schismatics sought to rend 
her asunder, heretics sought to poison the source of her life. 
But the spirit of her Founder animated her ; His strength 
sustained her ; His promise was the guarantee of her triumph. 
She cast out both heretics and schismatics, branded with 
her anathema. As she conquered Roman Cmsars, so, too, 
has she conquered German emperors and French and 
English kings. She has baffled infidel philosophers and 
impious statesmen. Of her was it said; ‘The hand that 
will smite her shall perish,' and the saying has been verified 
in every age of her history. The enemies of her youth have 
passed away, and of many of them scarcely a trace remains 
in history. A like fate awaits those who now seek to mar 
her work. Amid all the changes that time is bringing she 
alone remains unchanged — the same in truth, in sanctity, 
and in strength as she was in the days of her Founder, as 
she has been in the days of her suffering, and as she is 
certain to be when Antichrist shall come to test her fidelity. 
What Tertullian said of her in his day is true also in 
ours : — 

She asks no favour, because she is not surprised at her own 
condition. She knows that she is a pilgrim on earth, that she 
shall easily find enemies amongst strangers, but as her origin, so, 
too, her home, her hope, her reward, her dignity, are in heaven. 
Meanwhile she earnestly desires one thing — that she should not 
be condemned without being known . 1 

And this one reasonable request, Dr. Salmon denies her. 
He is teaching his students to condemn her without telling 
them what she is. This is his way of examining the 
validity of ‘ the Roman claims/ 

Now, as Dr. Salmon knows so much about our shortcom- 
ings, it may be well to ask him to set his own house in 
order. As he has shown, presumably to bis own satisfaction, 
lhat we are involved in an inextricable labyrinth by our 
*. ffort to prove Church from Bible, and Bible from Church, 

1 Apol. , ci:, n. 2. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



it may be time to ask him how he proves either Church or 
Bible. He has devoted two long lectures to an attack on 
the Catholic rule of faith, as explained by Dr. Milner. Has 
he any rule of his own, and is it quite invulnerable ? And 
as it is quite possible that these questions may, some time 
or other, be put to his theologians, it would have been 
good strategy on his part, and a most important portion 
of their training, to have provided them, if possible, with 
a satisfactory answer. And as to the Church, Dr. Salmon 
seems to have one, and only one, fixed conviction — 
that she is fallible. Dislike of Infallibility seems to be 
his predominant passion. His whole book is designed 
to justify and to gratify that ruling sentiment of his mind* 
He seems so anxious to vindicate for himself and for others 
the liberty to go astray ; he is so jealous of that privilege 
that the idea of Infallibility is intolerable to him, or in fact 
any assurance in religious truth, above * that homely kind of 
certainty which suffices to govern our practical decisions in 
all the most important affairs of life * (page 73). In fact he 
seems to have a lurking dislike even of that certainty also, 
for he says * that the more people talk of this certainty the 
less they really have ' (page 76). Now, as Dr. Salmon main- 
tains that Infallibility is a doctrine of ‘ cardinal importance,’ 
one would expect that, as he felt its importance, this 
Protestant Begins Professor would have made himself 
acquainted with what other Protestant divines say on the 
subject ; and would have communicated that knowledge to 
his juvenile theologians. He could hardly be so emphatic 
in his condemnation of Infallibility if he were aware that a 
very large number of his brother theologians are equally 
emphatic in maintaining that doctrine. This is another 
proof that the Begins Professor knows as little of his own 
theology (if the expression be allowable) as he does of our 
theology. Field, an ultra-Protestant, in his book on the 
Church says, when speaking of the Universal Church : — ‘So 
that touching the Church taken in this sense there is no 
question, but it is absolutely led into all truth without any 
mixture of ignorance, error, or danger of being deceived. * x 

1 Book i ▼. o. 2. 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



Bramhall says : — ‘ She (the Catholic Church) cannot err 
universally in anything that is necessary to salvation nor 
with obstinacy,’ 1 and he repeats this at page 334 of the 
same volume. Bishop Bull in the preface to his Defence of 
the Nicene Creed, in speaking of our Lord’s Divinity, says : — 

If in this question of the greatest importance we admit that 
all the rulers of the Church fell into error, and persuaded the 
Christians to accept that error, how shall we be sure of the fidelity 
of our Lord to His promise, that He would be with the Apostles, 
and, therefore, with their successors even to the end of the world. 
For since the promise extends to the end of the world, and the 
Apostles were not to live so long, Christ must have addressed, in 
the persons of His Apostles, their successors, who were to fill 
that office (s. 2). 

Tillotson holds this doctrine in his forty-ninth sermon. 
Even Chillingworth, in his Conference with Lewgar, is pre- 
pared to admit it. Palmer says of the decision of the Universal 
Church: 'I maintain that such a judgment is irrevocable, 
irreformable, never to be altered.’ 1 And he adds: ‘I 
believe that scarcely any Christian writer can be found who 
has ventured actually to maintain that the judgment of the 
Universal Church, freely and deliberately given, . . . 
might in fact be heretical and contrary to the Gospel’ 
(page 93). Dr. Salmon had not written then, but the state- 
ment is rather severe on him. Now these are all standard 
Protestant theologians, and Dr. Salmon might be expected 
to know what they hold on a question of such importance. 
But it must be said for him that he is more true to the 
spirit of Protestantism than they are. They maintain the 
infallibility of an imaginary Church — a doctrine which can 
never be tested — whilst Dr. Salmon maintains the fallibility 
of all Churches, as becomes the loyal son of a Church which 
proclaims, and has repeatedly and most conclusively proved, 
her own fallibility. Dr. Salmon has, in fact, placed his own 
orthodoxy as a Protestant above all suspicion by insisting 
so strongly on this cardinal doctrine of his Church — her own 
fallibility. There is just one thing remaining for him to do, in 
order to convince the most sceptical of the sincerity of his 

1 Works, toI. ii., p. 82, 3 Church , yoI. iL, p. 88, 

Digitized by 




belief in this fundamental article of his Church — that is, to 
abandon her. Let him leave her and no one can question his 
belief in her fallibility. The Doctor has probably subscribed 
to the Articles, and the 20th Article declares ‘ the Church 
hath . . . ; authority in controversies of faith, yet it is not 
lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to 
God’s written word .... so besides the same ought it not 
to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.' 
Now, though this Article opens with a declaration of Church 
authority, it proceeds at once to limit that authority, or 
rather more correctly to eliminate it altogether. The 
language clearly admits it as possible, that the Church may 
decree something not found in Scripture, and may enforce 
that as necessary to salvation. Since then the case is possible, 
and since, moreover, the 6th Article distinctly recognises 
the right of the individual to oppose such dictation, to refuse 
submission to it, who is to decide when the case occurs ? 

As the authority of the Church is limited there must be 
some tribunal to decide whether she has gone beyond her 
proper sphere, and, if so, how far. If the God-given right 
of the individual be invaded, there must be some tribunal to 
which he can appeal to protect his right of private judg- 
ment. Dr. Harold Brown in his book on the Thirty-nine 
Articles gives a very long and elaborate proof of Church 
authority. In fact he goes to the full extent of Infallibility, 
for be says : * Now if the Church has no power to determine 
what is true and what is false, such authority would be a 
dead letter, and the Apostle’s injunction would be in vain ' 
(page 477). He admits, however, later on, that her authority 
is not supreme, and he compares it to that of a judge in a 
law court (page 478). But in the case of the judge there 
remains a court of final appeal : — the king can do no wrong. 
But what is the appeal in the case of a conflict between the 
individual and the Church ? It cannot be the Scripture, for 
that is dumb; and the controversy is about its meaning. 
At page 480 he gives, with approval, a quotation from 
Archbishop Sharp, which is a complete surrender of Church 
authority. The substance of it is, that the individual is 
advised to submit for decorum sake. ' He ought to submit. 

Digitized by 



Yes, certainly, if the Chnrch have real authority ; but cer- 
tainly not, if her authority be the phantom laid down 
in the 20th Article. Mr. Palmer, in his treatise on the 
Church (vol. ii., page 72, 3rd ed.), maintains from a 
somewhat High Church point of view, that the Church 
is ' divinely authorised to judge in questions of religious 
controversy, that is to determine whether a disputed doctrine 
is or is not a part of revelation.’ And his very first argument 
for this authority is certainly an amusing one. 'It is 
admitted,’ he says, ' by all the opponents of Church authority 
who believe in revelation, that individual Christians are 
authorised by God to judge what are the doctrines of the 
Gospel. Therefore, as a necessary consequence, many or 
all Christians, t.e., the Church collectively, must have the 
same right ’ (page 72)/ 

Now, if the Church have the right of judging as well as 
the individual, the individual has it as well as the Church, 
and neither can be deprived of it by the other, since by the 
supposition both have it equally from God. Therefore there 
is a standstill — a theological deadlock. The Low Chnrch 
theory is a bad one ; the High Church is much worse. But 
it will be Been that Dr. Salmon explains the 20th Article in 
such a way as to relieve it of all inconvenient assumption 
of authority, and to remove completely from the minds of 
his militant theologians the nightmare of Church dictation. 
He adopts the formula of Dr. Hawkins : * The Church to 
teach, the Bible to prove.’ After a dissertation on the way 
in which secular knowledge is acquired, taken, too, almost 
verbatim, and, of course, without acknowledgment, from 
Dr. Whately, he says : — 

There need be no difficulty in coming to an agreement that 
the divinely-appointed methods for man’s acquirement of secular 
and of religious knowledge are not so very dissimilar. . . . We 
do not imagine that God meant each man to learn his religion 
from the Bible without getting help from anybody else. We freely 
confess that we need not only the Bible, but human instruction 
in it. . . . In the institution of His Church Christ has provided 
for the instruction of those who, either from youth or lack of time, 
or of knowledge, might be unable or unlikely to study His Word 
for themselves. (Page 113.) 

Digitized by 



This clearly implies that those who have time, and are 
learned, and able to study for themselves, like Dr. Salmon, 
can dispense with the Church. This is so far well. 
Dr. Salmon then proceeds to notice some difficulties raised 
by Catholics against his theory, and he repeats that God has 
anticipated this by the 

Institution of His Church, whose special duty it is to preserve 
His truth and proclaim it to the world. I need scarcely say how 
well this duty has been performed. . . . Ever since the Church 
was founded the work she has done in upholding the truth has 
been such that the world’s 1 pillar and ground of truth * are not too 
strong to express the services she has rendered. (Page 114.) 

It is certainly a high tribute to the judgment of St. Paul, 
who applied these words to the Church, to say that they 
4 are not too strong.’ But Dr. Salmon’s panegyric on the 
services done by the Church comes to a rather awkward 
climax. He says : — 

When every concession to the authority of the Church and to 
the services she has rendered has been made, we come very far 
short of teaching her infallibility. A town-clock is of excellent 
use in publioly making known with authority the correct time — 
making it known to many who, perhaps at no time, and certainly 
not at all times, would find it convenient, or even possible, to 
verify its correctness for themselves. And yet it is clear that one 
who maintained the great desirability of having such a dock, and 
believed it to be of great use in the neighbourhood, would not be 
in the least inconsistent if he also maintained that it was possible 
for the clock to go astray, and if on that account he inculcated 
the necessity of frequently comparing it with and regulating it by 
the dial which receives its light from heaven. And if we desired 
to remove an error which had accumulated during a long season 
of neglect, it would be very unfair to represent us as wishing to 
silence the clock, or else as wishing to allow any townsman to get 
up and push the hands back or forward as he pleased. (Pages 
115, 116.) 

And so this is the character of the Church’s services after 
all I And for these she deserves to be called the pillar and 
the ground of truth ! And after our Lord’s promise to be 
with her 1 all days even to the consummation of the world,’ 
to send her the spirit of truth, to teach all things, and to 

Digitized by L^OOQle 



abide with her for ever, after all the promises of super- 
natural gifts and endowments, and guidance and protection, 
and in the face of her extraordinary history, she is just as 
useful, just as infallible as a town-clock — neither more nor 
less, according to the Begins Professor of Trinity ! What 
an exalted idea of the Church’s work and office bis students 
must have carried away from his lectures ! How they must 
have felt that she is worth fighting for ! How they must 
have felt that their professor was the one man duly qualified 
t > care this town-clock Church, * to get up and push the 
hands back or forward as he pleased.’ Really the words 
‘ pillar and ground of truth ’ are not too strong to be applied 
to Dr. Salmon himself. He is indeed a theologian of rare 
endowments, and of extensive knowledge — a genuine off- 
spring of town-clock infallibility! And with a monopoly 
of that infallibility, he, of course, denounces any other, and 
regards us as in a state of intellectual paralysis, owing to 
our belief in the Infallibility of God’s Church. * We can 
see,’ he says, ‘ what a benumbing effect the doctrine of 
Infallibility has on the intellects of Roman Catholics, by the 
absence at present of religious disputes in their Communion * 
(page 106). This is one of Dr. Salmon’s most sapient 
observations, and it must have carried conviction to his 
students. We are not fighting about our articles of faith, 
owing to our belief in the Infallibility of the Churoh. 
Therefore we ought to renounce that belief in order to 
enjoy the privilege of fighting, and thus to have ourselves 
‘ braced and strengthened for the conflict.’ As Dr. Salmon’s 
students probably agree in nothing except in their hatred of 
the Catholic Church, they enjoy the privilege of fighting to 
their heart’s content, and must, therefore, be well ‘ braced 
and strengthened for the conflict ’ with us. When, how- 
ever, that conflict comes, they shall find it no sham-battle, 
they shall find town-dock infallibility a very poor protection 

Now, one would fancy that after Dr. Salmon's very 
accurate and striking analysis of Church authority, his 
students would have been satisfied that their Church could 
not impose on them any very trying doctrinal burthens ; but 

Digitized by 



in order, if possible, to comfort them still more, he sums 
up her teaching authority as follows : — 

In sum then I maintain that it is the office of the Church' to 
teach ; hut that it is her duty to do so, not by making assertion 
merely, but by offering proof, and again, that while it is the duty 
of the individual Christian to receive with deference the teaching 
of the Church, it is his duty also not listlessly to acquiesce in her 
statements, hut to satisfy himself of the validity of her proofs. 
(Page 116.) 

Whatever, therefore, the Articles say about Church 
authority in controversies of faith, Dr. Salmon holds that 
the individual is the supreme judge. The Church is to 
teach, 1 not by making assertions, but by offering proof,* and 
the individual is to satisfy himself, that is to judge for 
himself, the validity of her proofs. He ought, no doubt, 1 to 
receive with deference the teaching of the Church ' — this is 
only common politeness — but he himself is to judge the 
validity of the proofs, and consequently the truth or false- 
hood of the doctrine grounded on the proofs. 4 Our Church,* 
he says, 1 accepts the obligation to give proof of her 
assertions, and she declares that Scripture is the source 
whence she draws her proofs* (page 127), and she accepts 
also the obligation of having the validity of her proofs 
tested and judged by the ‘ individual Christian.’ The 
individual, therefore, teaches the Church instead of the 
Church teaching him ; he corrects her errors, he is the 
supreme judgedn controversies of faith, and so unnecessary, 
so useless is the Church in Dr. Salmon’s theory, that even 
the parallel with the town-clock is complimentary to her. 
Such, then, is the Church according to Dr. Salmon’s 

Now, what is his estimate of the Bible ? What is its 
place and its value in his teaching ? According to the 6th 
and 20th Articles combined the Scriptures contain all that 
is necessary to be believed, and the Church is limited, both 
for doctrine and proof, to the Scripture. ‘ The Church to 
teach, the Bible to prove,’ is Dr. Salmon’s own favourite 
formula. Now, since the Church must take her teaching 
and her proofe from the Bible, and from it alone, and since 

Digitized by LjOoq Le 



according to Dr. Salmon the 4 individual Christian ’ is the 
supreme judge of proof, and consequently of the doctrine to 
be accepted or rejected, it follows that the Bible, and the 
Bible only, and that too interpreted by each ‘ individual 
Christian’ for himself, is the sum total of Dr. Salmon's 
theology : his rule of faith. And the sum of his teaching is, 
that if his young controversialists go out equipped with this, 
the fortress of Roman Infallibility in Ireland must surrender 
soon. He notices some difficulties raised by Catholics 
against bis rule, such as the want of Bibles in the early 
Church, the difficulty of circulating them before the inven- 
tion of printing, the number of person unable to read or to 
understand the Bible; but he maintains that these difficulties 
do not affect the Protestant position by any means, because 
God has anticipated them by the institution of His Church 
as a Teacher; and because, moreover, 'We do not 
imagine,' he says, 'that God meant each man to learn his 
religion from the Bible without getting help from anybody 
else ’ (page 113). Now here is a complete abandonment of 
the Doctor's position. By his very striking and appropriate 
parallel with the town-clock, he has disposed of the Church 
as an authority, and in maintaining that it is the duty of the 
‘ individual Christian ’ to sit in judgment on the Church, and 
to verify for himself her proofs and her teaching, he has 
completely shut out every other 4 individual Christian ’ from 
any right of interfering in the process of verification. If it 
be the right and duty of the individual, as Dr. Salmon 6ays 
it is, to sit in judgment on the teaching of the Church, 
which comprises a multitude of individuals, it must be still 
more his right and his duty to sit in judgment on any 
individual of the multitude, who may undertake to enlighten 
him. And if it be his duty, as it clearly is, to verify the 
teaching of the individual as well as of the Church, then he 
no more needs the individual than he needs the Church. 
And thus Dr. Salmon is brought back to his own theory, 
stripped of all its adjuncts — the Bible, and thtf Bible only, 
and that, too, interpreted by each one for himself. 

Dr. Salmon has a special lecture on the Buie of Faith, 
and after some preliminary remarks irrelevant to the subject, 

Digitized by 



he says : ‘ However, I have thought it the simplest plan to 
avoid all cavil as to the use of the phrase, “ rule of faith/' and 
merely to state the question of fact we have got to deter- 
mine : Is there besides the Scripture any trustworthy source 
of information as to the teaching of our Lord and His 
Apostles ? 9 (page 140). This innocent man is so anxious 
' to avoid all cavil/ and to be brief and plain ; and hence he 
begins by laying it down as an indisputable fact that 
Scripture is an authority. Besides his desire * to avoid 
cavil/ perhaps he may be anxious also to avoid the awkward 
question : How does he know what Scripture is, and what on 
his principles is the character of its authority ? For him, 
however, there is no evading these questions, though bis 
anxiety to evade them is quite intelligible. And, moreover, 
he has not stated at all 4 the question of fact we have got to 
determine/ for we need an interpreter of Tradition quite as 
much as of Scripture, and hence the real vital question of 
fact is : Is there any divinely-appointed guide to tell us with 
a certainty sufficient for faith what Scripture and Tradition 
contain? That guide, according to Dr. Salmon, is the 
Bible alone, interpreted by each individual for himself. This 
is the sum of his theology. * The Church to teach, the Bible 
to prove/ and the individual to satisfy himself of the validity 
of the proofs ; that is, the individual is to see for himself 
whether the Church's teaching is really contained in the 
Bible to which she appeals. The individual, therefore, is 
supreme, and this is the fatal crux for the town-clock 
Church. And here again Dr. Salmon seems to be quite 
unconscious of the fact that a number of Protestant divines 
of high standing emphatically and explicitly reject and 
condemn his teaching. Mr. Palmer, already quoted, says of 
it : — 

The divisions of modern sects afford a strong argument for the 
necessity of submission to the judgment of the universal Church : 
for surely it is impossible that Christ could have designed His 
disciples to break into a hundred different sects, contending with 
each other on every doctrine of religion. It is impossible, I say, 
that this system of endless division can be Christian. It cannot 
but be the result of some deep-rooted, some universal error, some 
radically false principle which is common to all these sects. And 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



what principle do they hold in common except the right of each 
individual to oppose his judgment to that of all the Church. This 
principle, than, must be utterly false and unfounded . 1 

The whole body of High Church theologians reject 
Dr. Salmon’s teaching, and to the Bitnalists it is simply an 
abomination. There is another Bchool of Protestant divines* 
numerous and aggressive, who agree with Dr. Salmon in 
rejecting the infallibility of every Church, but who, with 
characteristic modesty, claim what is tantamount to personal 
infallibility for each of themselves. They hold that when 
they come in sincerity to search the Scripture, and when they 
pray for light and guidance, they are assisted by the Holy 
Spirit in their search for truth, and are enabled infallibly to 
find it. Indeed Dr. Salmon himself seem to lean towards 
this view, for he speaks of texts of Scripture (though he 
does not quote them) ‘ which give ns,’ he says, ‘ reason to 
believe that he who studies it in prayer, for the Holy Spirit’s 
guidance, will find in its pages all things necessary for his 
salvation’ (page 132). In this view each one is his own Pope. 
Dean Farrar says : * The Bible is amply sufficient for our 
instruction in all those truths which are necessary to salva- 
tion. . . . The lessons contained in Scripture, with the 
co-ordinate help of the Spirit by whom its writers were 
moved to aid us in this discrimination, are an infallible guide 
to us in things necessary.’ * 

That all these conflicting views on so vital a 
matter are freely maintained by Protestant divines, is 
conclusive proof of the comprehensive character of their 
Church. And Dr. Salmon, if he knew them, should have 
set them before his young controversialists that they may 
the better appreciate the privileges of Protestantism, and 
feel comforted by the conviction that in attacking Catholic 
doctrines they were not to be encumbered by any definite 
convictions of their own. Now, all those whose views have 
been quoted subscribe to the Article which declares that ‘ the 
Church hath authority in controversies of faith,’ and they 
show their respect for that authority by sitting in judgment 

* Church, vol. ii., p. 85. * The Bible : its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 18. 

Digitized by 



on the Church, and declining to accept her teaching till 
they shall have satisfied themselves as to its Scriptural 
character. The Low Church Protestant claims the right 
to sit in judgment on Church and Bible both ; the High 
Churchman sits in judgment on Church and Bible, Fathers 
and Councils. Either claim is a rather liberal assumption 
of authority, especially having regard to the grounds on 
which the claim is made. The votaries of private judgment, 
who claim the guidance of the Holy Ghost in their search 
for truth, stand, if their claim be well founded, on much 
higher ground. 

But then one’s confidence in their claim is rudely 
shattered by the notorious fact that under the alleged 
guidance they arrive at contradictory conclusions on the 
most vital doctrines of Christianity. The Catholic Church 
claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in her teaching, and 
it is at least a circumstance in her favour that she has 
never contradicted herself — never yet unsaid anything 
she once taught; but the Protestants who claim the 
same guidance are eternally contradicting one another, 
changing their creeds almost as often as they change their 
clothes. Dr. Salmon, too, accepts the 20th Article, but from 
his own words it is clear that the teaching authority of the 
Church is not high in his estimation. As already stated, the 
Bible, and the Bible only, and that, too, interpreted by each 
one for himself, is Dr. Salmon’s sole and sufficient rule of 
faith. Now, it must be that he feels this rule itself is not 
to be found in Scripture, when he appeals to Tradition to 
prove it. Let us test the value of his proof. ‘ There is,’ 
he sayB, ‘a clear and full Tradition to prove that the 
Scriptures are a full and perfect rule of faith, and that what 
iB outside of them need not be regarded. To go into details 
of the proof would scarcely be suitable to a viva voce lecture 
... I will, therefore, refer you to the second part of Taylor's 
Dissuasive,' etc. (page 143). Now, thus to evade the proof 
of a statement so much disputed, so vehemently denied, is 
not fair to his young controversialists ; it leaves a serious 
defect in their training. But even though Dr. Salmon’s 
assertion were as true as it is untrue, all the difficulties of his 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



position remain in full force. Whether the Bible contains 
the whole word of God, or only part of it, the whole diffi- 
culty of the interpretation remains. How can an ordinary 
Protestant, or even an extraordinary one like Dr. Salmon, 
find in that Bible, by his own private judgment, and with a 
certainty sufficient for faith, the full body of doctrine which 
he is bound to know and to believe ? How can he establish 
the divine authority, the inspiration of Scripture? Is he 
quite certain that God has not established an interpreter of 
His word which men are bound, on very serious penalties, 
to hear and to obey ? All these difficulties, and many more, 
remain in full force, whether the Scriptures contain all or 
only part of God’s revelation. And Dr. Salmon has not 
met them, and on his principle he cannot meet them. 
Instead of giving a proof of his assertion, Dr. Salmon says : 

I merely give you as a sample, the following from St. Basil : — 
* Without doubt it is a most manifest fall from faith and a most 
certain sign of pride to introduce anything that is not written in 
the Scriptures, . . . and to detract from Scripture, or to add 
anything to the faith that is not there, is most manifestly for- 
bidden by the Apostle, saying : Yet he had a man’s testament ; 
no man added thereto.’ (Page 143.) 

He gives, later on, a quotation from St. Cyprian. He 
quotes these two fathers, ‘an Eastern and a Western 
witness,’ to show that there is a clear tradition that the 
Scriptures are a full and perfect rule of faith, and that they 
contain the whole word of God. Now, in speaking of the 
fathers, Dr. Salmon says : ‘ I suppose there is not one of 
them to whose opinion on all points we should like to 
pledge ourselves’ (page 124) ; and again : ‘Not one of the 
fathers is recognised as singly a trustworthy guide ’ 
(page 131); and again: ‘Such a list [of fathers], impos- 
ing as it may appear to the unlearned, is only glanced at with 
contempt by one who understands the subject ’ (page 402). 
Now, when Dr. Salmon speaks in such a manner of the 
authority of fathers, individually and collectively, how can 
he rely on two of them as establishing a tradition against 
Catholic doctrine ? Surely, if he feels at liberty to ‘ glance 
with contempt ’ at a whole ‘ list ’ of fathers, be cannot expect 

Digitized by 



us to bow unhesitatingly to the. alleged authority of two 
of the number. Aod, even though St. Basil and St. Cyprian 
had said what Dr. Salmon attributes to them, his rule 
of faith would receive no strength from their statements. 
For there is still the difficulty of finding out the full profes- 
sion of faith out of Scripture, even though it were a full, 
complete record of God’s Word. The vital question is : 1 Is 
there a divinely-commissioned interpreter of God's Word 
wherever that Word is contained?’ and the quotations from 
St. Basil and St. Cyprian leave the question untouched. But 
the saints named do not maintain it at all ; they explicitly 
contradict the doctrine attributed to them by Dr. Salmon. 
St. Basil is quoted as teaching that the 1 Scriptures are a 
fall and perfect rule of faith . . . and that what is outside 
of them need not be regarded.’ Now, compare this state- 
ment with St. Basil’s own words. In his book, De Spiritu 
Sane to, c. 27, he says : — 

Of the truths and ordinances that are preached in the Church, 
there are some which we have handed down to us in written 
doctrine, and' some also which we have from the tradition of the 
Apostles . . . and both contribute equally to piety, neither does 

anyone contradict these [Traditions] who has even the slightest 
knowledge of the Church’s claims. 

The language of the Council of Trent accepting Scripture 
and Tradition with equal veneration ( pari pietatis affectu) 
is almost a transcript of St. Basil’s words 'parem vim 
habent ad pietatem.’ St. Basil then gives several instances 
of the influence of Tradition on the faith and discipline of 
the Church, and concludes thus : * The day would fail me 
if I were to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. 
I pass by others. The very confession of faith in the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written documents 
have we it ? ’ 

Again in chapter 29, De Spiritu Sancto , in answer to an 
objection that his way of saying the Doxology (‘ cum spiritu ’) 
was not to be found in Scripture, he says : — 

If nothing else has been received without Scripture authority, 
let not this either be received, but if we have already received many 
mysteries without Scripture testimony, let us receive this also 

Digitized by t^OOQle 



with the rest. For I hold it an apostolic precept to hold to unwritten 
traditions. ... If I should stand before a tribunal bereft of 
proof from the written law, and if I should produce before yon 
many witnesses of any innocence, would I not obtain from you a 
verdict of acquittal. . . . For the ancient dogmas are to be 

venerated, sinoe from their antiquity, their grey old age, they 
have a claim to veneration. 

It would be impossible for St. Basil to use clearer or 
stronger language than this in repudiating the teaching 
attributed to him by Dr. Salmon. St. Basil does not believe 
that ‘ the Scriptures are a full and perfect rule of faith, and 
that they contain all God’B Word,’ for he asserts that we 
believe mysteries that are not in Scripture — that have come 
to us by Tradition ; and he holds that Tradition has as much 
influence as Scripture in guiding us in God’s service — 
parent vim habent ad pie ta tern. And he pays a very poor 
compliment to men like Dr. Salmon who deny this teach- 
ing ; they have not, he says, the merest knowledge of the 
Church’s claims. But then, what is to be said of the text 
quoted by Dr. Salmon ? This is to be said of it — that he 
neither quotes it fairly, nor translates it correctly. It is 
taken from St. Basil’s letter, or sermon, De Vera Fide, which 
appears to have been written at the request of some persons 
(probably Borne of his monks), who asked him for a plain 
statement of Borne most important doctrines. After some 
hesitation he consents to give a plain simple statement of 
what he found in Scripture. He tells them that on other 
occasions, when defending the faith against heretics, he has 
gone outside Scripture for arguments as the occasion 
required. ‘But this time,’ he says, ‘I think I shall be acting 
more in accordance with your express wish, and with my own, 
if I do in simplicity what your Christian charity has imposed 
on me, and say what I myself have got from the Sacred 
Scriptures.' This leads on to the passage which Dr. Salmon 
has so cleverly manipulated. Again St. Basil repeats his 
resolution to confine himself to Scripture, and he gives his 
reason as before stated — that he is giving a simple instruc- 
tion to those who believe. He then gives a profession of 
faith, substantially the same as the Nicene Creed, and he 
concludes by saying that he has written this in accordance 

Digitized by ^ooQle 



with their wish, and as a reply also to some calumnies 
that embittered the closing years of his life. Because of 
his kindness and charity to some men of questionable 
orthodoxy, he himself was suspected of heresies which his 
soul abhorred. He was friendly with men who perverted 
the Scriptures, and rejected vital doctrines of Christianity, 
and his enemies represented him as sharing in the errors of 
his friends, and hence this allusion to bis calumniators with 
which this short treatise concludes. Now, bearing in mind 
that St. Basil had promised to confine himself to Scripture 
in this treatise De Fide, and moreover that he was himself 
suspected (unjustly) of want of respect for Scripture, and 
for vital doctrines contained in it, we can easily understand 
his language in the passage to which Dr. Salmon refers. 
Dr. Salmon’s translation has been already given (page 414), 
and as it is given within inverted commas, he puts it 
forward as correct. It is however incorrect, and grossly 
misleading. The correct translation is : ‘ It is a plain fall 
from the fhitb, and a clear mark of pride, either to set aside 
what is written, or to bring in what is not written. Since 
our Lord said My sheep hear My voice, etc., . . . and 
since the Apostle taking an example from human things 
most strictly forbids to add to, or take from, the inspired 
Scriptures. ’ In the first part of the quotation the thing 
condemned is, either to set aside what is written, or to 
introduce what is not written ; and as St. Basil wrote good 
Greek, it is significant that he uses for ‘bringing in’ the 
word irturdyuv, to bring in upon or beside. And from the 
example given by Liddell and Scott it is clear that the thing 
brought in assumes the position, the character, of the thing 
that it supersedes. The meaning, therefore, is that it is a fall 
from faith, either to reject real Scripture or to introduce as 
Scripture something that is not Scripture. And St. Basil 
makes this quite clear in the second part of the quotation, 
where the Apostle is quoted as forbidding ‘to add to or 
take from the Scripture.’ He is therefore condemning the 
perversion or corruption of Scripture itself, and this is 
confirmed by his proof from Galatians iii., 15 and 16, 
where the argument depends on the correctness of one 
voii. x. 2d 

Digitized by 



written word — where a mere change from singular to plural 
number would vitiate the argument of 8t. Paul. Thus, 
then, in the first part of the quotation, the perversion of 
Scripture is condemned on the authority of our Lord, and 
in the second part it is condemned on St. Paul’s authority. 
But Dr. Salmon has recourse to his usual tactics in order to 
find an argument in St. Basil’s text for the all-sufficiency of 
Scripture. He omitted some of what St Basil said, and 
introduced what St. Basil did not say, and moreover he 
omits all reference to the context. In the early part of the 
quotation he omits the phrase * to set aside the things that 
are written,’ and thus conceals the contrast between rejecting 
and introducing. His students are thus unable to see that 
both the rejection and the introduction referred to Scripture, 
and they are told that the thing condemned is not the 
introduction of spurious Scripture but of any tradition. 

Again, in the second part of the quotation Dr. Salmon 
says, * To detract from Scripture, or to add anything to the 
faith that is not there, is most manifestly condemned,’ etc. 
Here Dr. Salmon introduces the words, * or to add anything 
to the faith that is not there.’ These are Dr. Salmon's own 
words introduced for a purpose. They sure not St Basil's, 
and they have no foundation in his text. The text is : ’To 
add to or take from the inspired Scripture is forbidden,’ etc. 
There is no question of ’ faith,’ it is a question of the text 
itself of Scripture; and Dr. Salmon perverts St. Basil’s 
text in order to bring from it a doctrine which the saint 
most emphatically rejects and condemns. St. Basil does 
not say that Scripture contains all God’s Word. He main- 
tains that God’s Word is contained in Tradition as well as 
in Scripture, and that both have an equal influence on 
our spiritual lives. We take our faith from Scripture and 
Tradition alike, says St Basil himself; and, therefore, says 
Dr. Salmon, it is, according to St Basil, ‘ a manifest fall 
from faith ’ to take any truths of our faith from Tradition at 
all 1 No wonder the young Trinity men are profound theo- 
logians ! But Dr. Salmon finds even more aid from St Basil. 
He quotes the saint — and, strange to say, the quotation 
this time is substantially correct— as saying : ‘ Those 

Digitized by ^3 ooqLc 



who are instructed in the Scriptures ought to test the 
things that are said by their teachers, to receive what 
agrees with Scripture, and reject what disagrees ’ (page 143). 
Certainly those who are so instructed should follow 
St. Basil's advice. For what have they superior knowledge 
if not to make use of it ? But what are those to do who 
are not so well instructed in Scripture ? What provision 
does Dr. Salmon make for these ? He might as well have 
appealed to the Polar Star as to St. Basil for evidence of 
the 4 Bible, and the Bible only.* So much for his 4 Eastern 

And now let us see what his 4 Western witness ’ does for 
his theory. 4 For a Western witness,’ he says, 4 1 cannot 
take a better than St. Cyprian, because as his controversy 
was with the Bishop of Borne, the quotation will also serve 
to show how little the supremacy or infallibility of the 
Boman See was acknowledged in the third century ’ 
(page 144). How far the alleged action of St. Cyprian can 
be regarded as an objection to the primacy of the Pope, will 
be considered later on. but it is only one of Dr. Salmon’s 
peculiar logical acumen that can see in it an argument 
against Papal Infallibility. And the argument is this : In 
the controversy of St. Cyprian with Pope Stephen, the Pope 
was right, and St. Cyprian was wrong. Therefore the Pope 
is fallible, concludes Dr. Salmon ! Dr. Salmon admits the 
first proposition. How then can he hold that the defence 
of true doctrines by the Pope is an argument against his 
infallibility? If the defence of true doctrine be an argu- 
ment of the fallibility of the defender, then the promulgation 
of false doctrine must be an argument of infallibility, 
and Dr. Salmon’s own Church will be one of the most 
infallible Churches in existence. This is what his logic 
leads him to. 4 The question is not who was right in that 
particular dispute,’ Dr. Salmon says, 4 but what were the 
principles on which the Fathers of the Church then argued ’ 
(page 74). Dr. Salmon quotes at length the seventy-fourth 
of St. Cyprian’s letters to show what these 4 principles ’ 
were. And he concludes : 4 Plainly St. Cyprian here main- 
tains that the way to find out what traditions are genuine 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



is ... to search the Scriptures as the only trustworthy 
record of Apostolic tradition ’ (page 145). Now, no Catholic 
theologian is much concerned to defend St. Cyprian. He 
was a very able man, zealous, austere, and holy, but if the 
history of this controversy and his letters be genuine, he 
was clearly very obstinate and vehement in his temper, 
and he used very uncharitable language of his opponents. 
On the main question, which he seems to have regarded as a 
matter of discipline, in which each particular Church should 
be permitted to retain its own customs, he was in error, 
but he nobly redeemed his conduct by his martyrdom. 
Dr. Salmon’s quotation from St. Cyprian’s letter is sub- 
stantially correct, but even as he gives it, it excludes his 
inference. The quotation shows that St. Cyprian condemned 
the tradition alleged by Pope Stephen, not alone on the 
ground that it was not contained in Scripture, but on the 
additional ground that it was opposed to Scripture — con- 
demned by Scripture — and he argues at considerable length 
to justify this assertion. St. Cyprian then, instead of main- 
taining the views attributed to him by Dr. Salmon, states 
that if the tradition alleged by the Pope were contained in 
Scripture, he would of course accept; but since he finds 
that it is not only not contained in Scripture, but distinctly 
and repeatedly condemned and reprobated in Scripture, 
therefore he rejects and condemns it. To reject a doctrine 
which Scripture condemns is a very different thing from 
rejecting it because of the silence of Scripture.. The former 
is what St. Cyprian does, and hence it is, that his action 
affords no support to Dr. Salmon’s theory of the all sufficiency 
of Scripture. And thus his Western witness like his Eastern 
witness is a failure. But before Dr. Salmon set his con- 
clusions from this controversy before his students, he should 
have informed them that a great many learned men have 
regarded this whole controversy as spurious, and the 
documents bearing on it as simple forgeries, and lire reasons 
for this view are by no means trivial. No matter what the 
Doctor's personal opinion may be on the controversy, 
it is not fair to his students to keep them ignorant of what 
learned men have said on the very subject on which he 

Digitized by LjOOQLe 



was lecturing. The quotations from the other fathers— 
St. Jerome St. Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius — have been 
already discussed. They are misquotations every one of them. 
Instead of studying the authorities he quoted, he consulted 
Taylor’s Dissuasive , and advised his students to do in like 
manner. This system did well as" long as Dr. Salmon was 
lecturing his sympathetic audience ; but when he took the 
public into his confidence by the publication of bis lectures, 
he showed great imprudence, and he must take the penalty. 
There is no relying on his quotations, and his controversial 
tactics are the worst of the bad. At all events, should he 
again take to lecturing on theology, his students should 
exact from him a solemn and rigorous pledge on no account 
to rely on Taylor’s Dissuasive , 

And now, even though the fathers, quoted by Dr. Salmon, 
bad held what he erroneously attributes to them, the 
difficulties of his rule of faith remain — whether the Word 
of God be wholly or partly in the Bible, the vital question 
is what does that Word mean. It cannot be a reliable rule 
unless we have its real meaning — the meaning intended by 
God Himself. How is Dr. Salmon to determine that? 
And for him there is a ‘previous question ’ to be settled. 
As the Bible is his sole authority he has first to show that 
it is an authority at all. How does he, on his principles, 
show that it is the Word of God, divinely inspired? He 
is not pleased with us Catholics for putting this 
awkward question, and for having done so he charges us 
with denying the authority of Scripture ourselves. ‘ I 
own,’ he says, ‘it is with a very bad grace they here 
assume the attitude of unbelievers’ (page 83). But 
the Doctor must recollect that there is a great difference 
between denying, a doctrine and not permitting him 
to take it for granted. Then how does he prove it? 
Dr. Salmon has one class of proof for all such doctrines : 

‘ That Jesus Christ lived more than eighteen centuries ago ; 
that he died, rose again, and taught such and such doctrines, 
are things proved by the same kind of argument as that by 
which we know that Augustus was Emperor of Borne, and 
that there is such a country as China * (page 63). Now, we 

Digitized by LjOoq le 



know 4 that Augustus was Emperor of Borne/ etc., on human 
testimony, and such testimony necessarily resolves itself 
ultimately into that of eye-witnesses. We believe in the 
existence of Augustus because we can trace back the tradi- 
tion of his existence until we reach reliable witnesses who 
saw him, and who stated that they saw him, and we find the 
chain of evidence sound all along the line. Here is a sensible, 
external fact coming directly under the cognizance of eye- 
witnesses. Inspiration is a very different kind of fact. It is 
internal and supernatural, known only to God, and, perhaps, 
to the inspired person. Dr. Salmon’s historical proof, 
then, in order to be valid, must reach up in an unbroken 
chain either to God Himself, directly or indirectly informing 
him, or to the inspired writer testifying to the fact of 
Inspiration. Now this testimony is not contained in the 
Bible ; the writers do not tell us that they were inspired. 
Tbe texts usually quoted by Protestants fall altogether 
short of the requirements of the case; and the text of 
II. Tim. iii. 16, hitherto quoted as conclusive, is now 
abandoned in the Revised New Testament, and by all 
Protestant Biblical scholars of any authority. In order, 
therefore, to complete his historical proof of Inspiration, 
Dr. Salmon must go outside the Bible. But to go outside 
the Bible is to abandon his own principles, and to appeal to 
Tradition, and thus to surrender himself to a guide which 
may lead him astray, unless there be a competent reliable 
authority to distinguish true from false Traditions. The 
early fathers held the Inspiration of Scripture, as Dr. 
Salmon himself maintains, but where did they get that 
doctrine ? Not in the Bible, for it was not there. It must 
have come down to them then by Tradition from the 
Apostles, and they accepted Tradition as a reliable source or 
channel of doctrine. But then the fathers were Catholics, 
and Dr. Salmon is too good a Protestant to follow their 
example. That the Bible is the inspired Word of God is 
with him a fundamental article, if any article be Buch ; and 
he cannot accept such an article unless it be contained in 
Scripture, and unless, moreover, he can satisfy himself that 
it is contained there. It is not contained in Scripture nor 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



provable from it alone. And, therefore, on his own prin- 
ciples he is bound to abandon that doctrine. But if he be 
determined to maintain the doctrine, since the Bible fails 
hitn at the critical point, he has no alternative but one, 
which presupposes Tradition as a reliable channel of doctrine, 
and the Infallibility of the Church as a guardian and inter- 
preter of Tradition ; and both truths Dr. Salmon vehemently 
denies. If he adheres to his rule, the Bible, and the Bible 
only, be must abandon the Inspiration; if he desires to 
maintain Inspiration, he must abandon his rule. What, 
then, is he to do? How is he to gat out of his difficulty ? 
Only by abandoning the principle that has led him into it. 
He can never get out of it as long as he remains a Protes- 
tant. In one of his heroic moments, when there was no one 
to question or to contradict him, Dr. Salmou said : * I 
think it much better, then, instead of runniug away from the 
ghost of Tradition which Roman Catholic controversialists 
dress up to frighten us with, to walk up to it and pull it to 
pieces when it is found to be a mere bogey ’ (page 133). Very 
good and very brave, too ! Now is the Doctor’s time to 
immortalize himself, but it may be prudent for him to 
reflect that if he succeed the fate of Samson awaits him — 
he himself and his whole theological system will be buried 
in the ruins. 

But Dr. Salmon has to meet a difficulty, perhaps even 
more perplexing than the fact of Inspiration, that is — how 
far Inspiration extends. And this question is every day 
becoming more and more difficult for him. As long as the 
Bible was regarded as inspired throughout, and thus outside 
the range of criticism, Dr. Salmon’s difficulty was limited 
to its interpretation. But he has now, first of all, to deter- 
mine what precisely he is to interpret, for Protestants 
generally have, at the bidding of the ‘higher criticism,’ 
abandoned their old theory of Plenary Inspiration. All 
parties, in what is supposed to be Dr. Salmon’s Church, 
admit now — proclaim, in fact — that in the Bible, side by 
side with God’s Word, there is much also that is not His 
Word. Professor Stewart, writing on Inspiration in Hasting’s 
Bible Dictionary, after a review of the various theories on 

Digitized by LjOOQle 



the subject, concludes, 'that the determination of its nature, 
degrees, and limits must be the result of an induction from 
all the available facts.’ And certainly the process of criticism 
of ‘the available facts’ has gone on almost with a vengeance. 
Let anyone glance even at the catalogue of the ‘Foreign 
Theological Library’ of Messrs. Clarke, of Edinburgh, and he 
shall see at once the process of dilution that is going on in 
what is called Protestant theology. And there is no need of 
importing from Germany startling theories on the Inspira- 
tion of Scripture. We have them at home. A key-note 
is supplied by Dr. Percevall, Bishop of Hereford, in his 
introduction to a volume of essays by various Protestant 
divines, and called Church and Faith. At page viii., ‘ Their 
desire is,’ he says, ‘ to set forth the truths of the Gospel and 
the history and principles of our Church, as they have come 
to be read, and must in future be read, in the light of modern 
knowledge, and by those methods of dispassionate study 
which are now accepted as the only sure and safe guides, 
whether in history or in theology, or in any other branch of 
. learning.’ Canon Gore, in Lux Mundi, writes on Inspira- 
tion from a somewhat High Church standpoint ; but he is 
just as liberal as Low Church writers, and more illogical 
than they are. Dean Farrar, in bis Bible: its Meaning and 
Supremacy, gives a definition of Inspiration not remarkably 
lucid. He says: ‘It is an indeterminate symbol used by 
different men in different seuses which none of them will 
define’ (page 117). But the definition is not of much 
importance in the Dean’s theology, for he says, ‘ the Bible, 
as a whole, may be spoken of as the Word of God, because 
it contains words and messages of God to the human soul ; 
but it is not in its whole extent and throughout identical 
with the Word of God ’ (page 131), * And though a stricter 
theory may seem to be implied in the looser rhetoric of the 
fathers . . . it is in fact — an error of yesterday ’ ! And he 
quotes, with approbation, Mr. Buskin as saying : ' It is a 
grave heresy (or wilful source of division) to call any book, 
or collection of books, the Word of God.’ And Dean Farrar 
maintains that his theory of Inspiration is the teaching of the 
Catholic Church, and certainly the teaching of the Anglican 

Digitized by 




Church in the 6th Article, and that it is the only theory 
that can save the Bible from utter rejection. Now, if only 
portions of the Bible are God’s Word, before Dr. Salmon 
can take his faith from them he must first discover them ; 
he must sort them, and separate the portions that are God’s 
Word from those that are not. And how is he to do this ? 
Mr. Mallock in a criticism on Dean Farrar, puts this matter 
amusingly but most accurately thus : — 

The Dean of Canterbury, we shall suppose, desires to find five 
respectable persons to fill the post of vergers in Canterbury 
Cathedral. He is unable personally to search for such moral 
paragons himself ; but a friend of his knows of five for whose 
character he can vouch absolutely, and he engages to seud their 
names and addresses to the Dean. He writes them on slips of 
paper and puts them into a bag. but for some reason or other 
into the same bag he puts also the names and addresses of twenty 
others who are drunkards, mole-catchers, dog-stealers, burglars, 

— anything that is least eligible — and he sends them to the Dean 
all shaken up together. What would the Dean reply to a mes- 
senger who would bring him the bag and say : ‘ This bag contains 
(< complectitur ) an infallible revelation of the names and addresses 
you require?’ He would say, and probably with a touch of 
excusable anger : 4 The cpntents of your infallible bag tell me 

nothing at all, unless together with this I have somebody who will 
infallibly sort them and pick out the names and addresses which 
reveal to me what I want to know, from the names aud addresses 
which would mislead me and make a fool of me.’ And with regard 
to the Bible it is obvious that tbe case is precisely similar. Its 
inspired and infallible portions can convey to us no instruction till 
some authority altogether outside the Bible is able to tell us which 
these ir fallible portions are. 1 

This expresses very accurately the preliminary difficulty 
Dr. Salmon has to meet before he can avail of his rule, the 
Bible, and the Bible only. Now, the Bible and Bible only 
sounds well as a formula, a profession. It is one, and ought 
to lead to unity and harmony in faith. But instead of beings 
a guarantee of harmony, it is found by experience to be an 
apple of discord, for each one interprets for himself and so 
the Bible becomes Babel. And no wonder. Dr. Salmon 
himself admits that it is undeniable that it is natural to us 
all to read the Bible in the light of the previous instruction 

1 Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption , p. 59. 

Digitized by L^ooQle 



we received in our youth. How else is it that the members 
of so many different sects, each find in the Bible what they 
have been trained to expect to find there ? Now, if this be 
true, if men come to read the Bible with their beliefs already 
formed, how can Dr. 8almon say that they get their faith 
from it? They read it in the light of their own prejudices. 
But whatever view they bring to the reading of the Bible it 
is perfectly notorious that they carry away from it contra- 
dictory creeds. One Protestant finds in the Bible the 
doctrine of Priesthood, and Beal Presence; another finds 
in it that these doctrines are blasphemous ; one Protestant 
finds in it the Visible Church with the Infallibility of the 
‘ Church Universal ’ ; another finds in it a Church with 
some teaching authority, the nature and extent of which is 
to be determined by each individual member ; other equally 
orthodox Protestants find in it the invisible Church, which 
is another name for no Church at all ; one finds in it Justifi- 
cation by Faith, another Absolute Election ; one Protestant 
finds in the Bible the doctrine of Baptismal Begeneration— * 
the new birth ; another finds this doctrine condemned and yet 
others find it left an open question. And Dr. Salmon's 
1 Church of Ireland/ with what Mr. Mallock calls an 'ingenious 
Catholicity/ adopts all these views on this important subject. 
In the Preface prefixed to the Irish Book of Common Prayer, 
after the Disestablishment, in paragraph 4, reference is made 
to different views as to the formularies regarding Baptism, 
and the latitude hitherto allowed in their interpretation is 
sanctioned for the future. And on this same paragraph ;we 
have what must be regarded as an official authentic inter- 
pretation by Dr. Day, Protestant Bishop of Cashel, in a 
booklet called Some Things to be Noted of the Church of 
Ireland . At page 15 he gives the three views hitherto held 
*and included in the sanction of the Preface : — 

One is that the word ‘ regeneration ’ here made use of does 
not mean any change of nature or work accomplished by the 
Holy Spirit in the heart and character of the person, but only a 
change of state by which he is admitted into the Church. ... A 
second view .... is that regeneration means a real spiritual 

change in the infant who is baptized The third view 

entertained on this truly important subject is that regeneration is 

Digitized by 




indeed a new life imparted to the soul, but one whioh will surely 
show itself in due time wherever it is received, that as Baptism 
is the Sacrament or outward visible sign of this blessing .... 
we have a right to pray that the blessing may at the same time be 
given .... but afterwards it is to he seen whether the blessing 
has been given or not. (Pages 15, 16.) 

This last view is not very transparent. It means that 
though the new life may not be given with the Baptism we 
shall know subsequently whether it was, or was not given. 
The three views, briefly, and stripped of Dr. Day’s mystify- 
ing language, are: — 1. That Baptism confers spiritual life. 
2. That though the rite may not have conferred spiritual 
life, time and circumstance will tell whether it did or did